Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.

Bill committed.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Kidderminster and Stourport Tramways' [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Rhymney Valley Water Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PONTEFRACT CORPORATION BILL (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average annual cost of obtaining information under the Census of Production Act, 1906; and if he can give any information as to whether producers in this country find the information of value?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The expenditure on the Third Census of Production is expected to be about £100,000. The average annual expenditure on such censuses depends upon the frequency with which they are taken. There is no doubt, judging by the requests which come to my Department for information such as the Census will provide, that its results will be of very great value to the nation.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many firms regard the filling in of these forms as a nuisance, and that many object to the cost entailed in preparing the figures?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am convinced that although these firms may have objections to the cost or even to the trouble entailed in filling up these forms, the returns will in the long run be of great value to the mercantile community as a whole.

AUTOMATIC COUNTER SCALES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the automatic counter scales which are being rapidly adopted by retail shopkeepers comply with the 1907 regulations made under Section 5 of the Weights and Measures Act; whether it is regular for inspectors to stamp them; and whether he will amend the regulations and introduce additional safeguards against fraud?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The answer is rather long, and the hon. Member will perhaps not object to my having it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The machines referred to can be stamped by an Inspector of Weights and Measures only when the Board of Trade
have issued a certificate under Section 6 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, that the pattern is not such as to facilitate the perpetration of fraud. Apart from any special features of design which may be covered by the Board's certificate in any particular case, all such machines are required to conform to the general requirements of the Weights and Measures Act, 1907, particularly as regards accuracy. It is considered that the present procedure is adequate to prevent the use of machines whose design would facilitate fraud, but it is recognised that there is need for making additional Regulations for the guidance of makers and users of this type of machine, and the preparation of such Regulations is under consideration.

FRAUDULENT TRADING (CONVICTIONS)

Mr. RAMSDEN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the numbers and original nationalities of all persons convicted of fraudulent trading during the past two years?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply. I regret that the information asked for is not available. It may, however, be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that, according to the published Criminal Statistics for 1924, out of 1,867 persons received into prison during that year on convictions for various kind of fraud, 52 (2.7 per cent.) were born in foreign countries. Corresponding figures for 1925 are not yet available.

IMPORTS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. ERSKINE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of

—
Pig Iron.
Steel Ingots and Castings.


United Kingdom.
South Wales and Monmouth.
United Kingdom.
South Wales and Monmouth.


1924–1925.
1925–1926.
1924–1925.
1925–1926.
1924–1925.
1925–1926.
1924–1925.
1925–1926.


Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


August
…
…
588,900
444,500
69,000
51,600
527,500
477,100
138,100
114,400


September
…
…
569,200
448,700
76,400
62,800
645,000
640,100
190,500
175,400


October
…
…
586,400
473,700
73,300
65,400
678,500
652,400
191,800
175,900


November
…
…
583,500
494,100
67,900
64,300
674,300
653,800
187,500
169,500


December
…
…
580,300
503,400
63,000
62,000
551,000,
606,800
152,200
167,700


January
…
…
574,500
533,500
59,400
71,100
605,100
635,700
157,700
180,100

the adverse trade balance for the year 1925, it is proposed to do anything further to discourage imports other than food and necessaries?

Mr. SAMUEL: Presumably my hon. Friend has in mind the imposition of Customs Duties, and, if so, the answer given to him by the Prime Minister on the 3rd December last, a copy of which I am sending him, will give him the information he desires.

IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURES.

Mr. LOUGHER: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has returns showing the actual quantity of iron and steel and manufactures thereof produced in the South Wales district and in the United Kingdom as a whole each month from August, 1925, until January, 1926, compared with the figures of the corresponding months of the previous year, and the decline in the price of coal since August of last year?

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer contains a long table of figures. Accordingly, subject to my hon. Friend's concurrence, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to statistics published by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers the production of iron and steel in the United Kingdom and in the South Wales district in each month from August, 1925, to January, 1926, compared with figures of the corresponding months of the previous year was as follows:

Particulars of the production of manufactures of iron and steel in South Wales are not available. As regards the price of coal, I would refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I am giving to-day to another question he has addressed to me.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Merchandise Marks Bill during the present Session; and whether the provisions of the Bill will cover all imported agricultural produce that is capable of identification up to the time that it reaches the consumer?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The President of the Board of Trade has already given notice of his intention to introduce a Merchandise Marks Bill this Session, but pending its introduction he is not prepared to anticipate its provisions.

Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?

Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir.

CUSTOMS TARIFFS, EUROPE.

Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which two European countries have the highest customs tariff and which two the lowest, excluding in either case Great Britain and Russia; and if he can state, approximately or otherwise, what the respective tariffs would be expressed as percentages?

Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. and gallant Friend will find a note on the relative ad valorem incidence of Customs Tariffs as affecting British trade on pages 542–5 of the volume entitled "Survey of Overseas Markets," which was published last year by the Committee on Trade and Industry. This note, however, deals only with the seven European countries which are of principal importance to our trade. I am afraid I could not undertake to extend the inquiry, since the labour and expense would be very heavy.

Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the countries of Latvia, Esthonia, and Lithuania are in one Customs union, or
if they have separate tariffs; and, if so, I what is the nominal height, approximate or otherwise, of their respective tariffs?

Mr. SAMUEL: There is no Custom union between Latvia, Esthonia and Lithuania. As regards the second part of the question, I have no estimate, and here again the labour and expense involved in framing an estimate would be very considerable. I should, however, be happy to show my hon. and gallant Friend copies of the tariffs of these countries, if that course would be of help to him.

Sir C. MORRISON-BELL: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if Albania is joined to Jugoslavia in a Customs union, or if these two countries have separate tariffs; and, if so, if he can state, approximately or otherwise, how these two tariffs compare?

Mr. SAMUEL: Jugoslavia and Albania have distinct Customs regimes. It would be impossible to establish any general comparison between the two tariffs without an amount of labour and expense that could not be justified.

FOREIGN CHALKS AND CRAYONS (IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. MACKINDER: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now allow coloured foreign chalks and crayons to be imported without a licence from the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee in view of the fact that goods of a similar standard cannot be produced in this country?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The importation of foreign chalks and crayons is prohibited under the Dye-stuffs (Import Regulation) Act only if they are of synthetic organic origin. A large variety of these materials is available from British sources, and consequently there is no reason for any departure from the practice usually followed in the administration of the Act.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that British manufacturers have repeatedly told the importers that they cannot get a British product of the same use and value?

Mr. SAMUEL: I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details, and I will look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES.

BREAD.

Viscount SANDON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that retail bread prices have not for some weeks been in accordance with the scale laid down by the Food Council, a black list will be published as originally intended, by the Council in this eventuality?

Sir B. CHADWICK: It is not the case that retail bread prices have not for some weeks been in accordance with the scale laid down by the Food Council, nor was it ever the intention of the Council to publish a black list. My Noble Friend will have observed that the price of bread in London was reduced to 9½d. on 22nd February. This price is in accordance with the Food Council's scale.

SHOP RENTS.

Mr. HARDIE: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, from the details from which the Royal Commission on Food Prices gave their Report last year, he can give the percentage of increase of retail shop rents since 1913?

Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir. I am unable to supplement the information contained in the Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the enormous increase of rents being passed on to the consumer, are the Board of Trade taking no interest in the matter?

Sir B. CHADWICK: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Food Commission have had this matter before them. They did find that rents had not risen in the same proportion as food prices, but they did not make any report on it. I suppose they did not consider it a part of their duty.

Mr. HARDIE: Was it so small that the Food Commission considered it was not worth making a report upon, or are we to take it that the Commission want to hide what has taken place in this continued increase of rent?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am sure the Food Commission did not want to hide anything. The hon. Gentleman has their
Report, and they say, "We have not attempted to estimate what effect such increases may have in the retail cost of food."

Mr. HARDIE: In view of what has taken place and of cases which are now on in the City of London, where men are being done to death, so far as their business and their work are concerned, by the continued increases in rent, are the Board of Trade taking no action, as someone is bound to suffer?

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

COTTON LACE AND NET.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of imports and exports of cotton lace and net for the six months preceding and the six months following the imposition of the Safeguarding Duties?

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer is long, and contains a table of figures. Accordingly, the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The aggregate value of the imports and exports of cotton lace and net during the periods specified has been as follows:


—
Jan.-June, 1925.
July-Dec. 1925.



£
£


Total Imports
809,100
253,000


Re-exports
629,500
87,600


Net Imports Retained
179,600
165,400


Exports of United Kingdom Manufacture.
1,247,200
1,002,000


The figures of imports and of re-exports include, for the period prior to the imposition of the duty, goods in transit on through bills of lading. Since the imposition of the duty, such transit goods have been, for the most part, transhipped under bond. It has long been the practice to exclude goods transhipped under bond from the general figures of imports and re-exports. Transhipments of lace and lace goods under bond in the period since the imposition of the duty
account for a large part of the decreases in recorded imports and re-exports of such goods.

It may be added that the value of any cotton lace imported in postal parcels would appear in the trade accounts under the heading "Parcels Post" prior to the duty and under the heading "Cotton Lace" after that article became subject to duty.

IRON AND STEEL SUBORDINATE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. HANNON: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of industries subordinate or allied to the iron and steel trades which make application for safeguarding under the provisions of the Board of Trade White Paper, such applications will be treated on their merits and without reference to the decision of His Majesty's Government on the application made by the iron and steel industries?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am not sure that I understand the meaning of my hon. Friend's question; but I do not think that it would be possible to give a general answer about a number of unspecified industries which might be governed by different considerations.

Mr. HANNON: Has the Board of Trade received any application from any of the subordinate industries connected with steel in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper with regard to safeguarding?

Sir B. CHADWICK: My hon. Friend knows that I could not possibly give him an answer on that point.

Mr. MACKINDER: Which industry is not subordinate?

HOSIERY AND KNITWEAR.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the committee appointed to inquire into and report upon an application which has been made under the safeguarding of industries procedure by the National Joint Industrial Council of the Hosiery and Knitwear of Cotton or Wool will be instructed to take into account the effect of any duty upon the retail price of those articles, in view of the importance that they should be procured as cheaply as possible by the poorer members of the community?

Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir. The instructions to the Committee appointed to inquire into this particular application will be the same as those given to other committees appointed under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure, and are set out in Part II. of the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN TYPEWRITERS.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Swedish Government have recently bought 875 British-made Imperial typewriters, and that they have expressed themselves as being completely satisfied; and will he place trial orders with this and other British firms forthwith?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have no information of such an order, nor of the opinion of the Swedish Government of this machine, beyond the statement of the company. As I stated yesterday in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Basingstoke (Colonel Sir A. Holbrook), trial orders have been placed with this and other British firms.

Captain WATERHOUSE: May I get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in our Embassy in Sweden, at any rate, British typewriters will be used?

HOLIDAYS.

Sir F. HALL: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of civil servants who receive over four weeks' holiday each year; and what would be the reduction of staff, and the consequent annual saving on salaries, if the maximum annual leave were reduced to four weeks?

Mr. McNEILL: The number of civil servants, exclusive of those on foreign service, who are eligible for more than four weeks' holiday each year is estimated to be approximately 23,000. I am unable to conjecture the saving which might result if my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion were adopted, but it would certainly be insignificant, as the duties of officers of the grades in question who are on leave are normally covered by extra attendance on the part of their colleagues, who are not entitled to any additional payment on this account.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

TIMBER, DECK CARGOES.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received representations from the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee with regard to the carrying of timber as deck cargo; and whether he proposes to give effect to these suggestions?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given to the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Major MacAndrew) and Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on 16th February,a copy of which I am sending him.

WIRELESS EQUIPMENT.

Mr. SEXTON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the steamer "Brighton," which was recently in difficulties on the cross-Channel service, she fully complied with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; if not, in what respect she did not; whether the vessel was fitted with direction-finding apparatus; whether this apparatus was brought into use; how many passengers and crew were aboard: and whether they suffered any inconvenience?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am informed that the steamer "Brighton," which was recently in difficulties in the Channel, fully complied with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. The vessel is not fitted with direction-finding apparatus. There were 35 passengers and 51 crew on board, and they experienced, I am informed, no inconvenience.

Mr. SEXTON: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the steamer "Darlington," which was recently in collision, he will give particulars whether she fully com plied with the Merchant Shipping (Wire less Telegrapy) Act, 1919, and, if not, in what respect she did not; whether she was fitted with wireless direction- finding apparatus; whether this was brought into use, and, if not, for what reason; and how many persons were aboard?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The steamer "Darlington" is a small vessel of less than 1,600 tons gross tonnage, and, not
being a passenger ship, is not subject to the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. She was not fitted with direction-finding apparatus. The total number of persons on board at the time of the casualty was 32.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Did this ship carry any valuable cargo at all?

Mr. SHORT: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the steamer "Antwerp" which was recently in difficulties, he will give particulars whether she fully com plied with the Merchant Shipping (Wire less Telegraphy) Act, 1919, and, if not, in what respect she did not; whether she was fitted with wireless direction-finding apparatus; whether this was brought into use; and how many persons were aboard?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The steamer "Antwerp," which was recently in difficulties, fully complied with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. She is not fitted with direction-finding apparatus. The total number of persons on board at the time was 138.

Mr. HAYES: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships, normally subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, have been reported overdue since 26th November, 1925; how many have failed so far to reach their destinations; and will he name the vessel or vessels?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The number of vessels normally subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, which were reported overdue since 26th November is six. All these vessels have arrived safely in port.

Mr. HAYES: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Essex Chase," carrying passengers, was due at Philadelphia on the 29th January; whether she has yet arrived; if not, whether she is presumed lost; whether she fully complied with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; if not, in what respect she did not; and what was the total number of persons aboard?

Sir B. CHADWICK: It is reported that the steamer "Essex Chase" reached the Azores on the 20th February, short of
coal. I am informed that she did not carry any passengers. No wireless operator was engaged prior to the vessel's departure from the United Kingdom on the 9th January.

Mr. LEE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the German steamer "Poseidon" recently collided with and sank the French steamer "Deputé Henri Durre"; whether any British steamers in the vicinity were able to answer the call; and how many persons were involved in the collision?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am aware that a collision occurred near Antwerp on the 13th February between the German steamer "Poseidon" and the French steamer "Deputé Henri Durre," and that the latter vessel sank. I have no information as to whether any wireless signals were sent out by these vessels, nor as to the number of persons involved in the collision.

Mr. THOMAS KENNEDY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that wireless-operator Fraser was recently sent from Hull to Newcastle to join the steamer "Silverpine," while steamers in Hull were unable to secure operators and were allowed to proceed to sea without complying with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; whether the "Silverpine" is owned by a company subsidised by the Government; and whether Government subsidised companies are receiving any preferential treatment in the matter of the supply of operators during the marine wireless dispute?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am informed by the Marconi International Marine Communication Company that a wireless operator was sent from Hull to Newcastle to join the s.s. "Silverpine." This vessel was proceeding on foreign service for an indefinite period, and it was, therefore, deemed advisable to appoint an operator who was willing to accept duty on this particular ship. The s.s. "Silverpine" does not, at the moment, belong to a company in respect of which a guarantee has been given under the Trade Facilities Act, but is in course of transfer to such a company.
The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steam trawler "Tenby Castle" recently sent out a distress call; whether the call was picked up by any vessel in the vicinity; whether the "Tenby Castle" and her crew are lost; and will he give full particulars?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Distress signals sent out by the "Tenby Castle" at 5.14 a.m. on 14th February, were picked up by Valentia Wireless Station and by several ships which were too far away to be of assistance. A general message to trawlers in the vicinity was sent out by Valentia at 8 a.m., when the operators on the trawlers came on watch, and it was picked up (by the steam trawler "Cardigan Castle" and others. The crew of the "Tenby Castle" were saved in their lifeboat, reaching the shore at 10 a.m. I regret to say that in searching for the "Tenby Castle" the "Cardigan Castle" was lost, and, so far as reported, only one of her crew has been saved.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that wireless operators A. G. White, late of the steamer "Marlock," and E. J. Cook, late of the steamer "Ranchi," have been available at the revised rates of pay since 7th February; whether he permitted the steamers "Trevalgan," "Albany," "Portloe," "Phyllis-seed," "Archmell," "Pensilva," "Blythmoor," "Ronda," "Bencorlic," "King- guffydd," "Ladykirk," "Ladyastley," and "Parkhill," to sail without operators contrary to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; and, if so, on what grounds?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The answer is a long one, and, if the hon. Member sees no objection, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

I am informed that Mr. White was serving on board the s.s. "Marloch" when that vessel was in collision with the s.s. "Whimbrel" on the 2nd February, and that when the "Marloch's" lifeboat was launched he joined in the search party for the crew of the "Whimbrel." In consequence of this he suffered from severe exposure, but
maintained a continuous wireless watch on board the "Marloch." until her arrival at Southampton, and in view of the very long hours of duty and the trying ordeal experienced by this operator, he was granted fourteen days' special leave in which to recuperate. As regards Mr. Cook, I am informed that the steamer "Ranchi" arrived, in London on the 4th February and was booked to sail, and did sail, on the 19th February. During the time the ship was in port Mr. Cook had certain duties to perform, and owing to the state of his health it was necessary to give him a few days' rest. Of the other steamers mentioned, two left carrying operators. The reasons why the Board of Trade, during the late dispute, allowed vessels to sail without operators have been frequently stated.

ALLOTMENTS (WAR OFFICE LAND, LUDGERSHALL).

Mr. HURD: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the lang agent of his Department at Durrington threatens to withdraw allotment land from the parish council of Ludgershall, Wiltshire, unless they agree to terms which would necessitate a doubling of the allotment holders' rent; how the present rent compares per acre with that of the farm land of which it has been a part; whether he is aware that the reversion of the allotment land to the farm would mean less revenue to the State as well as less food for the people; and whether he will give an assurance that no higher rent will be asked for allotment land than for ordinary farm land of the same district, quality, and character?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The position is that at present a tenant of the War Department at Ludgershall has sublet about 13 acres of his farm on yearly tenancies for allotments, partly to the parish council at £1 an acre exclusive of rates, and partly to the allotment holders direct at £2 6s. 8d. an acre inclusive of rates. The War Department have been asked by their tenant to resume this portion of his farm, and he has given notice to the parish council and the allotment holders to quit. When the present tenancies expire the War Department have offered to let the whole 13 acres to
the parish council on a yearly tenancy, or a seven years' lease, as may be preferred, at a rent of £1 10s. an acre. They are advised that this is a very reasonable rent; though higher than the rent for the whole farm of which it now forms part and which contains a good deal of permanent pasture: it is considerably less than the average for allotments in the neighbourhood. I cannot give any undertaking which is inconsistent with the War Department's obligation to charge not less than a fair rent based on the user of the land.

Mr. HURD: Then may we take it that no higher rent will be asked for allotment land than for ordinary farm land of the same district, quality and character?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the same question to which I have replied in the rather long answer I have given.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask why the War Department have put obstacles in the way of intensive cultivation of land by the raising of rents?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. The War Department are not putting obstacles in the way. On the contrary, they are offering to let land to the parish council for the very purpose of providing allotments.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ADMINISTRATION DUTIES, ALDERSHOT.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: 33 and 34.
asked (1) the Secretary of State for War what is the number of commissioned officers employed on administration duties at the headquarters of the 1st Division at Aldershot;
(2) what is the number of commissioned officers employed on administrative duties at the headquarters of the Aldershot command?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the information given on pages 18 and 19 of the current Monthly Army List.

CAVALRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War
what is the present cost of the cavalry of His Majesty's Army; what was the cost in 1913; and what reduction in the number of cavalry soldiers has taken place since that year?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The effective cost of the cavalry on the British establishment in the present year's Estimates is £1,909,000; in 1913–14 Estimates it was £1,559,000, but the basis of the figures for the two years is not quite the same. The cavalry on the British establishment has been reduced from 14,716 in 1913–14 to 9,105 in the present year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If any further reductions in the cavalry are contemplated, will there be an increase in the Air Force available for the Army?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not at this moment.

Mr. THURTLE: Is not this expenditure on cavalry largely a sheer waste of public money?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We do not think so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the whole experience of the War in France was not that cavalry have ceased to be a necessary element as an eye of the Army, or of any use for mass attack?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir; and France was not the only seat of war.

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (PAY).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can make any statement as to the pay of those Woolwich cadets who passed the examinations and began their course before the new rates of pay came into force, and are now being given commissions; and if it is still proposed to pay these gentlemen less than those cavalry and line officers now commissioned who entered Sandhurst at the same date and after the same examination as the Woolwich cadets?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This matter is still under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, if I put down a question in a fortnight's time?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I hope I may be able to tell my hon. and gallant Friend in a fortnight or three weeks. Perhaps he will communicate with me.

RECRUITS (UNEMPLOYED MEN).

Mr. THURTLE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of the troops recruited during the past year were unemployed at the time of their recruitment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Records are only available in respect of the London area, where 60 per cent. of the recruits were unemployed at the time of their enlistment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

POISON GAS.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to the effect that German chemists are still being employed by Chinese militarists for the manufacture of poison gas, as stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Foot Mitchell) on 15th July, 1925?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the result of further inquiries, I do not think that the previous information in regard to this matter can be relied upon. The German Government deny that any German chemists are in the employment of the Chinese militarists. I accept the denial unreservedly.

ANTI-BRITISH STRIKE AND BOYCOTT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when an opportunity will be afforded for a full statement to be made to the House regarding the present position of affairs in China and the policy which is being adopted by the Government to safeguard British interests, in view of the results to British trade of the existing conditions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to my hon. Friend the
Member for South-East Essex on the 10th February. No material change has yet taken place in the situation in China, and I do not think a further statement would serve any useful purpose at present.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen, or has he any knowledge of some news that appears in the Press this morning to the effect that the Commissioner of Customs has closed the port of Canton, and does he not consider that that shows that the people on the spot are doing their best to uphold the interests of British trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the statement referred to by my hon. Friend. The Foreign Secretary is unable to be here to-day. Doubtless any hon. Member putting down a question would hear what my right hon. Friend has to say.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was the closing of the port of Canton done without consultation with the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should want notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now prepared to provide the access roads which were promised several years ago by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to the holders in the township of Reef, in the Island of Lewis?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As I stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on the 2nd July last, what was promised to the Reef holders was a grant towards the construction or repair of certain roads. The contribution offered was originally £520, but this was subsequently increased to £810. This offer is still open for acceptance by the holders.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Does not the Minister now realise quite clearly that the money offered is quite insufficient in the view of anyone who has knowledge of the subject?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. That is not my opinion.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have given very careful consideration to this question, and in my opinion and that of my Board, it is sufficient.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman never thought it worth his while to visit the Island of Lewis, so as to see for himself the terrible state of affairs there?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, I was there last August.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now able to make a statement regarding the possibility of completing the South Loch Erisort Road, which was left unfinished by the Board of Agricul ture for Scotland in the autumn of 1924?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am unable to hold out any hope of an additional grant being made at the present time towards the cost of constructing the part of this road which was not covered by the previous scheme.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Are the Minister and the Government aware that it is an extremely foolish thing, after spending thousands of pounds, to leave the work unfinished?

STEEL HOUSES.

Mr. COUPER: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the prospective demand for the new steel houses erected on the authority of the Government, any arrangements are being made regarding the process of selection of the occupiers; and whether it is intended to give the tenants any option of purchase?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The selection of tenants for the houses in question is a matter for the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust) Limited, who are building the houses, and any applications by prospective occupiers should be addressed to the secretary of the company at 63, Frederick Street, Edinburgh. The company will be prepared to consider any proposals by tenants or others for the purchase of the houses.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in the selection of tenants those with the largest families get the first choice?

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland to have no control over the question of the occupiers? Was not the statement made, when the building of these houses was first mentioned, that it was for the relief of people in necessitous areas, and are the Government going to keep their promise that those who require houses most are to get them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If I were to answer all these questions, it would be a Debate.

Mr. COUPER: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it has yet been decided what are to be the respective sizes of the new steel houses to be built on the selected sites in Glasgow; and if any arrangements are being made to build any of these houses of two or more storeys on the tenement principle?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The accommodation of the houses referred to will consist of three and four apartments and, in addition, a scullery, bathroom and larder to each house. The houses will be of three types, the bungalow, the two-storey cottage and the two-storey flat. No building will be more than two storeys in height and no one block will consist of more than four houses.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What will be the rent?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It will vary in each case.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it possible to get anything definite in pounds, shillings and pence, because our people have only so much money to spend each week, and we have a right to know what is to be the "rent of these houses?

Commander WILLIAMS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put down a question as to the type of houses to which he refers.

EXCISE LICENCE, STORNOWAY.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the people of Stornoway adopted a no-licence resolution under the
Temperance (Scotland) Act in 1920 and again in 1923; and, in view of the fact that these decisions have been frustrated by the issue of excise licences, what steps does he propose to take in order that the will of the people shall prevail?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not prepared at the present time to give any undertaking as to legislation to amend the law with regard to the issue of excise licences in areas in which a no-licence resolution is in force. I may add that I am informed by the Customs and Excise that there is only one excise licence in force in the burgh of Stornoway.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Are supplies not available under the Act apart from these excise licences altogether, even though "no licence" is carried?

Mr. BARR: Is it not so: that they are not necessarily available, and only if a special licence for restaurants and hotels is granted?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is only one licence in Stornoway under the Act.

Colonel APPLIN: Cannot an Englishman get a drink if he goes to Stornoway?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He does not deserve it!

MIDWIVES.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the new regulations for the training of midwives coming into force in May of this year and the difficulty of meeting the full extra costs by increased fees to pupil nurses in the Scottish maternity hospitals, if he will try to secure for Scotland the same grants-in-aid which are promised for similar hospitals in England and Wales?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I am unable to take the action proposed for the reason stated in my answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on 15th February. In view of the interest of Members in this subject and the difficulty of dealing adequately with it by the method of question and answer, I have had an explanatory Memorandum prepared which I am forwarding to the hon. Member and which I should be glad to make available to
Members interested. At the same time I fully appreciate the special difficulty with which the maternity hospitals may be faced, and am keeping it in view in considering the Report of the Departmental Committee on the hospital position in Scotland.

Dr. SHIELS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that maternity mortality in Scotland is much heavier than in England, that these pupil nurses mostly come from the working classes, and that this increase of fees is probably going to have a serious effect upon maternity nursing in Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We are watching the position very closely.

BEACH DWELLINGS, CARDROSS AND HELENSBURGH.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that for two or three years past about 1,000 people have taken up their residence on private property on or about the shore between Cardross and Helensburgh, and more especially between Ardmore Bay and Helensburgh; that they live in wooden structures and in bell tents, some staying all the winter, others only during summer months; that these people are householders in neighbouring towns; that at the spot in question there are no sanitary arrangements, drains, or water supply other than polluted burn water, and that, accordingly, there is risk to public health; that the structures erected for occupation do not conform to the regulations of the County Council of Dumbarton; and what proceedings he is prepared to adopt to put an end to this menace to public health?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In reply to the first two parts of the question, I am informed that in 1924, 667 persons, including 194 children, took up residence on the shore between Cardross and Craigendoran under the conditions indicated. In 1925 the number so in residence was 391, including 149 children. I understand that the majority of these people usually reside in neighbouring towns. I am informed that the local authority have issued special instructions as to the sanitary accommodation, and that there is no ground for complaint under this head, the necessary conveniences having been provided. The main water supply
is suitable for domestic purposes; the local authority have from time to time directed attention to the risk of taking Water from certain places and the Scottish Board of Health are at present keeping the matter under close observation. With reference to the penultimate part of the question, only two quasi-permanent structures come within the scope of the local authority's building byelaws, the other coming under the byelaws for tents, vans and similar structures. Convictions for contravention of the building byelaws have been obtained in the case of the two quasi-permanent structures and the Board of Health are at present in communication with the local authority with reference to the demolition of these structures. With regard to the last part of the question I am informed that the local authority's byelaws for tents, vans and similar structures are being reasonably enforced. I may point out that the local authority have no power to prohibit the use of such structures unless coming within the ambit of the building byelaws and also that the occupation of private land is not a question with which the local authority have power to deal.

LAND DRAINAGE GRANTS.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the manner and the extent to which Scotland will participate in the Government schemes for land drainage?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Government propose to ask Parliament to vote for the purpose of grants towards the cost of agricultural drainage schemes a sum equal to 11/80ths of the provision to be made for such grants in England and Wales. The sum included for such grants in Scotland in the coming financial year is £20,625. I am sending to the hon. Member a statement containing a summary of the main terms and conditions which will be applicable to the grants.

LEGITIMACY BILL.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when and where the Legitimacy Bill will be introduced this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: This Bill will be introduced in another place as soon as possible.

INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Mr. SHORT: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to make any allowance in the calculation of Income Tax in respect of dependants; over the age of 16 who have not been employed since leaving school?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I regret that I do not see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. The Income Tax allowance in respect of a child over the age of 16 years is in my view properly limited to cases where the child's education is being continued.

Mr. HURD: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of Super-tax is now in arrear, and what is the number of taxpayers concerned?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 18th February. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

Mr. HURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman say he sent me a reply?

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated assent.

Mr. HURD: No, Sir.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I gave my hon. Friend a reply on 18th February, and I am now sending him a copy of that reply.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have not raised this question before?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have in my hand questions and answers in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 18th February, in which it appears that there was a question on the Order Paper by my hon. Friend relating to Super-tax—but perhaps I had better read it.

SUPER-TAX.

Mr. HURD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of Super-tax is now in arrear and what is the number of taxpayers concerned."

Mr. HURD: That was never put.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is an answer reported.
In view of the fact that the main collection of the current year's tax is now proceeding, I am unable, without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, to state the amount of Super-tax
in arrear at the present date. If my hon. Friend would repeat his question after 31st March I should hope to be in a position to give a figure at that time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February; col. 2164, Vol. 191.]

Mr. HURD: That question was never put.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was answered.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that interest accrued on deposits in banks is not subject to Income Tax in the year in which it has accrued, but in the year following; whether he is aware that, if any such deposit is withdrawn and the asset no longer in existence in the bank at the period in the year following when the assessment papers are completed, the interest which had in fact been paid to the depositor escapes Income Tax altogether; and if he can give any estimate of the amount of interest income which thus escapes taxation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I find on inquiry that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. While it is generally true that a recipient of bank deposit interest is charged on the preceding year basis, he is chargeable under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1922, for the year in: which the interest first arises on the amount arising in that year. The particular leakage apprehended by the hon. Member does not, therefore, exist.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the Government in the 1915 Finance Bill itself brought forward an Amendment to stop this leakage, and that Amendment was withdrawn after considerable pressure had been put on the Government by the bankers; and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reintroduce that Clause in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: So many things have happened since 1915 that I am afraid I cannot carry all the proceedings of the Budget in my head. I will look into the matter.

Mr. THURTLE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of the deduction of the tax at the source, as in the case of dividends?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, Sir, I really must have notice of these Income Tax questions.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the pressure which is being made by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax for the payment of Super-tax for 1925–26,he will consider extending to the payers of Super-tax the same privileges enjoyed by payers of Income Tax, to allow payments to be made in two instalments, the second not later than June?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I fear that I could not contemplate the alteration in the law which my hon. Friend suggests, which I am advised would cost in the year of change £16,000,000.

Mr. RILEY: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of persons assessed for Income Tax and the number assessed for Supertax, repectively, for the years 1922–23, 1923–24, and 1924–25?

Mr. McNEILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The estimated number of individuals with total incomes above the effective exemption limit of the Income Tax is as follows:



Number of Individuals.
Total.


Year.
Entirely relieved from tax by the operation of abatements and allowances.
Chargeable with tax.


1922–23
…
2,700,000
2,375,000
5,075,000


1923–24
…
2,350,000
2,45,000
4,800,000


1924–25
…
2,300,000
2,400,000
4,700,000


The figures for the year 1924–25 are provisional only.

The following estimates have been made of the number of persons liable to Super-tax for the years named:


Year.


Number of persons liable.


1922–23
…
…
…
89,000


1923–24
…
…
…
91,000


1924–25
…
…
…
90,000

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

KENT COALFIELD.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that a guarantee for £2,000,000 has been granted under the Trade Facilities Act for developing the Kent coalfield, he will assure the House that no further guarantee of this kind will be made until after the Coal Commission has made its Report on the mining industry as a whole?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not feel able to give so sweeping an undertaking. But the hon. Member can rest assured that in future as in the past the Mines Department will be consulted before any guarantee is given for any colliery undertaking, and my right hon. Friend doubtless has fully in mind the possible effects of the Report of the Coal Commission.

SILVER LINE LIMITED.

Mr. SEXTON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that under the Trade Facilities Act a sum of over £5,000,000 has been guaranteed by the British Government to a shipping company called the Silver Line, trading between New York and Eastern ports, that the capital of the said company is limited to £500,000, and that this company is partially under American control and is in direct competition with all British shipping companies trading direct from the British Isles to the same ports, if he will be prepared to extend the same facilities to them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The guarantee given to the Silver Line, Limited, as reported to Parliament in House of Commons Paper No. 174 of 1925, covers a sum of £1,107,000 for the construction of six vessels to be built in British yards. As the ships do not touch the British Isles in their trading route, I do not see how they can be in direct competition with British shipping companies trading direct from the British Isles to the same ports. The Advisory Committee would, of course, consider on its merits any application from any British shipping company.

Mr. SEXTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same sort of produce is carried from New York to the Eastern ports by our own ships as is now
carried by the ships of this line? And is he also aware that the principle directors are domiciled in Brooklyn, in the United States of America, and that most of the capital of the line is American?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, I am quite aware of what is mentioned in the last part of the supplementary question, but it was one of the objects of the Trade Facilities Act to foster employment in this country, and to encourage the starting of enterprises in this country, not only by British capital but by foreign capital, in order to give more employment.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that everybody employed by this company is an American citizen and not a British citizen?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a question of getting ships built in the shipyards.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that only British subjects are employed upon these ships?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that would be inconsistent with the policy the House has adopted in regard to Trade Facilities, which has undoubtedly been to direct enterprises to this country which would otherwise be located in some other country.

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by subsidising this line he is, as a matter of fact, seriously interfering with the trade of a number of British shipowners?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course all these interferences, which are favourable in one direction, very often have unfavourable reactions in another direction. The whole question was debated very fully last night, and I suggest that an occasion like that is the best on which to explore this subject.

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. MACKINDER: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow any rebate on the £28 18s. 10d. import duty in respect of a sofa covered with silk, and as such assessed as a made-up article containing silk?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his
question of 15th December last on this subject. If he will be good enough to furnish me with sufficient particulars to identify the case he has in mind I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Mr. MACKINDER: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the method adopted to check the claims for drawback on exports of goods containing silk?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The revenue cheeks on drawback claims, in respect of silk goods exported, are of the same kind as those in respect of other classes of drawback goods. It would not be in the public interest to describe them in detail, but I may say that they include, in varying percentages, inspections of the goods, analysis of samples, examination of exporters' records, and verification of actual shipment.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it correct to assume that it is at least a two days' task for the officials to check these goods on each export?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will look into that, as I think that would be excessive.

Mr. MACKINDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman not say whether the statement is or is not correct?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There will be many opportunities of discussing these matters on the Budget where the Silk Duties will come up.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method of working the Silk Duties in Manchester is quite satisfactory to the exporters?

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRANCE).

Mr. THURTLE: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state when he expects to be able to resume negotiations with the French Government with a view to completing a debt settlement with France?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The French Minister of Finance has informed me that he hopes to come to London before the end of February, but necessarily his movements depend upon the course of the financial discussions now proceeding in the French Parliament.

BRITISH DOLLAR CREDIT, NEW YORK.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to date of the credit of $100,000,000 in New York; the total estimated cost for the first year; and how long it is expected that this unused credit will be required?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The cost to date is $1,125,000, being the commission payable in respect of the first year; unless the credit is used there will be no further payment for that year. I cannot at present say whether the credit will be prolonged beyond the end of the year.

BANK OF ENGLAND ADVANCES (RETURN).

Viscount SANDON: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will in future dispense with four pages of exact quadruplication in Return No. 9 of this month relative to advances to the Government by the Bank of England?

Mr. McNEILL: This Return is presented under Statute. I have no power to dispense with it, and I do not think it would be in the public interest to suppress the publication annually of this correspondence, the cost of which is trifling and which under certain circumstances might be an important safeguard of sound relations between the Bank and the Treasury.

Viscount SANDON: Could not the later copies of the letter be simply recorded as being the same as the first letter?

Mr. McNEILL: If my Noble Friend will tell me privately what he thinks is the advantage, I will consider it.

Viscount SANDON: It will save four pages.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

FATAL ACCIDENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 67.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many fatal accidents occurred in the coal and iron mines of the United Kingdom during the year 1925; and how many persons lost their lives?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The number of fatal accidents at such mines in 1925 was 1,048, and the number of persons who lost their lives was 1,134.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at least one of those accidents occurred in a mine through a man being ordered to go into a place where timber had been knocked out by accident and not replaced?

Colonel LANE FOX: I do not think that arises out of the question.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I think it does.

TRANSPORT COSTS.

Mr. LOUGHER: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has Returns showing the percentage increase in the average cost of the transport of coal from the pits to the ports in the coal-exporting districts of South Wales and the north-east coast compared with the average cost of transport in 1914?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. I regret that I have not got this information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

OMNIBUSES (RESTRICTIONS).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether, in view of the intended restriction of omnibuses on tramway routes, any attempt has been made to ascertain the preference of the travelling public; and whether, in arriving at a general policy on this matter, he will see that the preferences of the public are considered as much as possible?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I understand that the London Traffic Advisory Committee have had before them figures showing the extent to which omnibuses and tramcars respectively are used by the travelling public, and also such other evidence as is available in the matter. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that in connection with any proposed restrictions of omnibus services upon tramway routes, consideration will be given to the requirements and preferences of the public, so far as these can be ascertained.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed restrictions are likely to cause the greatest inconvenience to certain London constituencies?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I am not aware of that, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will communicate the details, I will look into the matter.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to publish, for the convenience of Members of the House, the Report recently submitted to him by the London Traffic Advisory Committee with reference to the reduction of omnibuses upon certain routes?

Colonel ASHLEY: I must reserve to myself the right to make what use seems to me expedient and proper of any reports and recommendations which may be submitted to me by the London Traffic Advisory Committee. In this particular case it seems to me in the public interest that the grounds on which the Committee base their recommendations should be known, in view of their important bearing on passenger transport facilities in London generally. I am therefore making arrangements for the Report to be published, and I hope that copies will be available to Members at an early date.

BUILDING MATERIALS (DELIVERY DELAY).

Major CRAWFURD: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain firms of builders are receiving bricks and other building materials, which are despatched in one or two trucks daily, in big batches after considerable delay; whether he is aware that, owing to the delay and uncertainty in delivery by the railway companies of the bricks manufactured in this country, many builders are purchasing and importing Belgian and Continental bricks; and will he take steps to facilitate more prompt delivery?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received complaints with regard to the transport of brick traffic from the Peterborough area, and the London and North Eastern Railway Company have arranged to meet representatives of the industry during this week and hope, as a result, to be able to make arrangements that will be satisfactory to those concerned.

Sir G. WHELER: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any complaints of the lack of railway facilities from any other part of the country?

Colonel ASHLEY: Not that I can recollect at the moment.

ROAD FUND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the surplus in the Road Fund in the years 1926, 1924 and 1923?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not clear what the hon. and gallant Member wishes to imply by the use of the word "surplus." Statements on the position of the Road Fund at the end of the financial years in question are to be found in paragraph 3 of each of the Annual Reports on the Administration of the Road Fund for the years 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25 respectively.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform me last week that he anticipated a surplus of £17,000,000 at the end of the present financial year? I only wish to make a comparison of the figures with previous years.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read that very excellent Report, he will see the figures.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has a road surplus, when I have roads in my own constituency upon which I could spend practically the whole of his surplus?

Colonel ASHLEY: Then there would be a deficit.

Major CRAWFURD: Is not the use of the word "surplus" in this connection entirely misleading?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is what I think.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly uses that word?

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY.

Captain FAIRFAX: 77.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the continual complaints in the Eastern Counties of the unpunctual running of the passenger service of the London and
North Eastern Railway: and if he can take any steps to secure an improved service, other representations having failed?

Colonel ASHLEY: The railway company have informed me that the weather conditions of the past winter have had a detrimental effect on the punctual working of their trains, but that there has recently been an improvement, notwithstanding difficulties caused by the slipping of banks as a result of heavy rains. The company have assured me that the matter will continue to receive the close attention of their officers.

Captain FAIRFAX: Will the Minister of Transport endeavour to press the companies to secure an improved service, because it is really a serious disadvantage to business men in the Eastern Counties?

Colonel ASHLEY: I quite appreciate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point of view, and I will communicate with him further.

Mr. RYE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this trouble also occurred during the summer months in the Eastern Counties?

Colonel ASHLEY: I was not aware of that, but perhaps the hon. Member will give me some instances.

TOLL BRIDGES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport how many toll bridges have been taken over by local authorities and paid for out of the Road Fund since January, 1925?

Colonel ASHLEY: So far as I am aware no toll bridges have been taken over by local authorities since January, 1925. No contributions have been made to this purpose from the Road Fund under the Act of last year.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Was it not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman when he got his Bill last year to buy out as many of the toll bridges as possible?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I have that power under the Act of 1925, but I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that the initiative in those matters must come from the local authority, and I have no power to move in the matter.

TRAFFIC REGULATION.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 84.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has been approached by an inventor, resident in Brighton, offering a novel solution of the traffic problem, together with an undertaking to deposit £100, or more if necessary, if the invention was not within 12 months of general publication adopted by some English town; and whether he will come to some understanding with the inventor as regards the result of the investigation?

Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 11th February to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, of which I am sending him a copy.

ROAD SURFACE EXPERIMENTS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 88.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any experiments are now being made with regard to material on the surface of roads to prevent skidding; and whether he can inform the House as to the result of any of these experiments?

Colonel ASHLEY: Numerous expedients have been adopted by various highway authorities with assistance from the Road Fund. I hope to conduct further experiments into this problem under the powers conferred upon me by the Roads Improvement Act, 1925.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman discovered a successful method up to date.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the hon. Member will agree that we have to a substantial extent improved the road surface, and that at any rate it is very much better than it was.

BICYCLES (WHITE OR RED DISCS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 89.
asked the Minister of Transport if his Department has yet had an opportunity of testing the efficacy of the white disc on the rear wheel of bicycles from the safety-first point of view?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certain tests, which have recently been carried out by officers of my Department in co-operation with officers of the Royal Automobile Club, tend to show that while a white disc
attached to the rear of a bicycle is of some assistance in enabling overtaking traffic to locate the bicycle in the dark, it is not so effective from this point of view as an efficient red reflector. The efficiency of the white disc varies considerably according to the nature of the background, and there is the inherent difficulty of ensuring that the white patches or discs are always kept clean and in good condition.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it? Is he going to make the red disc compulsory?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think my hon. Friend must await legislation.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the opinion of the Ministry of Transport as to the effect of a red disc on the left hand buttonhole of a coat?

HON. MEMBERS: Darlington!

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in bringing in his new Bill, he will take into consideration the necessity for insisting upon cyclists carrying a rear light?

Colonel ASHLEY: Of course I have given much consideration to that matter, and when I bring in my Bill my hon. Friend will see what are the provisions.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the red button stands for danger?

Mr. BECKETT: Will the Minister of Transport consider at the same time the advisability of stopping the use of too powerful searchlights, because these two things could be dealt with together.

Colonel ASHLEY: That does not arise.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 90.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the platforms of many stations on the Southern Railway between Norwood Junction and London Bridge are at times so encumbered with milk cans that they seriously hamper the passengers in getting in and out of the train; and whether he will draw the attention of the railway company to the need for improvement?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have had a complaint with regard to Forest Hill Station, and the subject is engaging the attention of the railway company. If my hon. Friend will let me know what other stations he has in mind I will draw the attention of the company to them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 91.
also asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the insufficient accommodation provided by the Southern Railway Company on the electric services between Catford and Victoria; and whether he will take steps to have it improved?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of his complaint, I will ask the railway company to consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

PARKING PLACES (TELEPHONE FACILITIES).

Colonel DAY: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the inconvenience experienced by motorists in calling their cars which are parked at parking places, he will consider the advisability of installing telephones at all such parking places, by which drivers of vehicles can be called by their employers when required?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no funds which could be applied for this purpose, and apart from any question of finance, the practical difficulties in giving effect to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion are, I fear, insuperable.

OMNIBUSES AND CHARS-A-BANC ACCIDENTS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increasing number of accidents to omnibuses and chars-a-banc, owing probably to defective overhauling, he intends to take any and, if so, what steps to see that such vehicles are overhauled before the excursion season begins?

Colonel ASHLEY: Under existing law it is open to a licensing authority, subject to an appeal to the Minister of Transport, to refuse to grant a license for an omnibus or a char-a-banc which in the opinion of the authority is defective. The inadequacy of existing powers for the
regulation and inspection of public service vehicles and the absence of any such power in some areas is to me a matter of serious concern, and I propose to deal with it in the Bill relating to road vehicles which I hope to have the opportunity of introducing during the present Session.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of accidents to motor omnibuses, motor coaches, and similar vehicles which took place in the year 1925 and which involved loss of life or injury, and the number of persons who lost their lives or who were injured as a result of such accidents; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation under which first-aid outfits would have to be carried on all such vehicles, and the driver or some other person be required to have a knowledge of first-aid?

Colonel ASHLEY: I regret that I am not in possession of the information sought in the first part of the question, and I doubt whether it would be possible to obtain any reliable figures. As regards the last part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 9th February to the hon. Member for Newport, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Would it not be possible to get these figures from the Police Returns, and is he aware that a large number of accidents occurred last year which resulted in a considerable loss of life?

Colonel ASHLEY: I know there were a considerable number, but I think the hon. Member will appreciate that all cases of accident are not reported to the police.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make provision that all motorists should be compelled to take out insurance, so that if anybody is injured there will be an adequate sum to compensate them?

Colonel ASHLEY: That does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

CABLE ROOM STAFF.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 92.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state what is his decision with regard to the pay, conditions and recruit-
ment of the staff employed in the cable room upon Government overseas cable and wireless operating?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): A claim is about to be presented to the Civil Service Arbitration Court covering the rates of pay of the staff in question. In the meantime I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

AUXILIARY SORTERS.

Mr. THURTLE: 93.
asked the Post master-General if he has yet had an opportunity of considering the points recently submitted to his Department by a deputation representing the Auxiliary Sorters' Association?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The various points raised are receiving consideration.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Baronet keep in mind the fact that a great deal of distress and unrest is caused in his Department by the number of auxiliary employes who are only allowed to work for some 20 hours per week, and could he not try-to give them a full week's work?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully aware of that.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 94.
asked the Post master-General if he is aware that many auxiliary sorters employed within the London postal service receive less in wages than unemployment benefit or Poor Law scales of relief; and will he immediately consider reorganising the hours of employment with a view to these men procuring a higher standard of subsistence for their wives and children than at present exists?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The point referred to by the hon. Member is one of several on which representations were made by a deputation from the Auxiliary Sorters' Association which was received on the 10th February. These representations are receiving consideration.

FATAL ACCIDENT, FARRINGDON STREET STATION (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Colonel DAY: 95.
asked the Postmaster- General whether any payment is being made to the widows and dependants of
the two Post Office linesmen killed at Farringdon Street Station on 8th February last prior to any award of compensation that may ultimately be paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that the circumstances do not admit of any such payments being made. Any compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts must be paid into the County Court, to be dealt, with as the Court in its discretion thinks fit for the benefit of the persons entitled thereto under the Acts.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not possible for the Department to do what the Miners' Federation and many trade unions do, namely, to assist the bereaved families for the time being until the compensation moneys are collected?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I have just explained in my answer, I am not able to do so officially, but unofficially. I may say, arrangements are being made.

POSTMEN WITNESSES (WAGES).

Colonel DAY: 96.
asked the Postmaster- General, if he is aware that, at the Leicester Police Court on 15th February, it was stated that the wages of two post men attending that Court to give evidence that a dog attacked them when carrying out their duties, would be stopped for the time occupied by the Court proceedings; and will he cause instructions to be given that such employés shall not be so penalised for performing such public duties?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My attention had already been drawn to the statement, which was incorrect and due to a misapprehension. The Regulations provide for the payment of wages in full in such cases, and the Clerk to the Magistrates has been informed accordingly.

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 97.
asked the Post master-General what has been the net value of the advertisements carried in the London Telephone Directory for the last three issues?

Mr. McNEILL: The net value to His Majesty's Stationery Office of the adver-
tisements carried in the London Telephone Directory for the last three issues was:




£


1924 Second Issue—October
…
23,628


1925 First Issue—April
…
23,576


1925 Second Issue—October
…
25,188

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Have the prices for advertisements remained stationary, or have they gone up with the popularity of the book?

Mr. McNEILL: If my hon. Friend had followed my figures, he would have seen that they are going up.

REGISTERED PACKETS (REVENUE).

Sir F. HALL: 98.
asked the Postmaster- General what was the amount of revenue obtained in 1925 from the extra charges made on registered letters, postal packets and parcels; what was the amount of the compensation paid in the same year for lost letters and parcels; and in how many cases and on what grounds compensation was refused?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The estimated revenue for the financial year 1924–25 from the extra fees charged in respect of registered and insured postal packets was £660,000. The amount of compensation paid in respect of loss of registered letters and parcels was £5,320. I am unable to furnish details of the cases in which compensation was refused. The conditions under which compensation is paid are specified in the Post Office Guide.

WOMEN TELEPHONISTS (HEALTH).

Mr. SPOOR: 99.
asked the Postmaster- General if he can give any indication of the general health of women employed in Post Office telephone exchanges; and whether any medical statistics are avail able showing the causes and prevalence of illness?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The statistics for 1924, which are the latest at present available, show that the average numbers of days of sick absence for telephonists were:



Days.


In London
12.6


In Provincial Districts of England and Wales
12.2


In Scotland
13.4


In Northern Ireland
12.3


The average sick absence of the whole established female staff of the Post Office in 1924 was 12.7 days. I regret that no statistics are available of the numbers of days' absence attributable to particular diseases.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why his own country suffered most in this respect?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think the influenza epidemic in 1924 was responsible for it.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (PLURAL VOTING).

Mr. TAYLOR: 100.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in Great Britain are entitled to more than one vote in Parliamentary elections; and whether he will consider an amendment of the existing franchise qualifications, to ensure that no person shall be able to register more than one vote at future General Elections?

Captain HACKING: I am unable to give the precise information desired. In England and Wales 217,511 electors are registered for business premises qualifications and 51,357 electors for university constituencies, but it is not known how many of these have a vote in another constituency as well in respect of a residential qualification. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

NAVAL DEFENCE (EMPIRE CONTRIBUTIONS).

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 103.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the nature and value of the contracts placed, and now being carried out, in this country on account of the Australian Commonwealth Department of Defence (Naval Department), including cruisers, submarines, and seaplanes; and the contributions being made to naval defence at the present time by the other Dominions, Dependencies, and Colonies of the Empire, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): As regards the first part of the question,
the following contracts have been placed by the High Commissioner for Australia:





Approximate Value.





£


2 Cruisers
…
…
4,300,000


2 Submarines
…
…
700,000


In addition, materials and auxiliary machinery for a seaplane carrier to be built in Australia are being ordered in this country, but I have no information at present as to the value of these contracts.
As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 9th April last (OFFICIAL REPORT, Cols. 2431/3), to which I might add that the only cash contributions made are £100,000 per annum by India for the maintenance of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters, and a grant of £250,000 by Hong Kong towards the cost of the Singapore naval base.

MESOPOTAMIA (DEPORTATION OF CHRISTIANS).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 104.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether reports have reached him as to atrocities perpetrated by certain Turkish regiments upon Christians on the northern border of the British mandate territory of Iraq; if so, whether he is taking up the matter with the League of Nations; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries with a view to definite representations being made in the proper quarter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Information reached His Majesty's Government early in September last to the effect that the Turkish authorities were deporting large bodies of Christians from the districts to the north of the so-called Brussels line, and that these deportations were being carried out in circumstances of great cruelty. This information was brought by His Majesty's Government to the notice of the League of Nations on the 21st September, and, as a result, a Commission was sent out under General Laidoner to investigate the matter on the spot. Its reports were
made to the Council of the League, and have been published as Command papers Nos. 2557 and 2563.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Do I understand that representations will be made to the League of Nations to expedite action to prevent further atrocities?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Since the investigation was made we have had no information at all that any further deportations have taken place.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not the case that, notwithstanding these atrocities, the Prohibitionist party last week voted against the Iraq Treaty?

NAIROBI (FIRE).

Sir R. HAMILTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the House any information as to the disastrous fire in Nairobi.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have received no information except what has appeared in the Press.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go with business to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will not be necessary to sit very late to-night, as we had quite a late night last night. I propose to ask the House to take the first three Votes of the first Order, that is to say, those for the Ministry of Health, Police, and Office of Works, together with the second and third Orders on the Paper—the Report stages of the two Financial Resolutions; and, as I understand there is a general desire among all parties that the alterations to Standing Orders set out on the Order Paper should be made, I hope it will be possible to take these also.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided Ayes, 261; Noes, 134.

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fielden, E. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Forrest, W.


Albery, Irving James
Christie, J. A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gates, Percy


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cope, Major William
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Couper, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gower, Sir Robert


Balniel, Lord
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Grace, John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grant, J. A.


Benn, Sir A. s. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gretton, Colonel John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brass. Captain W.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hammersley, S. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harland, A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hartington, Marquess of


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Elveden, Viscount
Haslam, Henry C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hawke, John Anthony


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Everard, W. Lindsay
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Campbell, E. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fermoy, Lord
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Hills, Major John Waller
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Skelton, A. N.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore, Sir Newton J
Smithers, Waldron


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Huntingfield, Lord
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, F. c (Aberdeen, South)


Jacob, A. E.
Oakley, T.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. sir W. Mitchell-


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tinne, J. A.


Jephcott, A. R.
Penny, Frederick George
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Peto. Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Waddington, R.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Philipson, Mabel
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pilcher, G.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Knox, Sir Alfred
Preston, William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, W.
Watts, Dr. T.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ramsden, E.
Wells, S. R.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Loder, J. de V.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lougher, L.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lumley, L. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Rye, F. G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Salmon, Major I.
Wise, Sir Fredric


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Viscount


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Macquisten, F. A
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.


Malone, Major P. B.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew. W)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)



Merriman, F. B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Meyer, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Fenby, T. D.
Kenyon, Barnet


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Kirkwood, D.


Baker, Walter
Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gosling, Harry
Lee, F.


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
Livingstone, A. M.


Barr, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.


Briant, Frank
Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Broad, F. A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bromfield. William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Montague, Frederick


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hardie, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.


Clowes, S.
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Owen, Major G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Cove, W. G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben


Crawfurd, H. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Kelly, W, T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dennison. R.
Kennedy, T.
Sexton, James


Dunnico, H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)




Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Welsh, J. C.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Westwood, J.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Whiteley, W.


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Thurtle, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Townend, A, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snell, Harry
Varley, Frank B.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Viant, S. P.
Windsor, Walter


Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wright, W.


Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Warne, G. H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stamford, T. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Stephen, Campbell
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sutton, J. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Taylor, R. A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

ARTHUR LEWIS SHEPHERD, esquire, for the Borough of Darlington.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

EX-SERVICE CIVIL SERVANTS.

Captain A. HOPE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the grievances of ex-naval and military civil servants, and move a Resolution.

OVERSEA TRADE.

Mr. PILCHER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the unsatisfactory position of trade between this country and India and other oversea markets, and move a Resolution.

POLITICAL OFFENDERS (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, my hon. Friend (Mr. Dunnico) will call attention to the question of the imprisonment of political offenders, and move a Resolution.

UNIVERSITIES (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION).

Mr. TINKER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to University representation in the House of Commons, and move a Resolution.

WORKS OF ART AND ANTIQUITIES (PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL).

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the export from the United Kingdom of certain works of art and ancient or historic buildings and monuments.
The need for a Bill such as this has increased very much of recent times. It has always been deplorable, in my submission, that national treasures of art or literature and buildings should be liable to be taken out of this country when one realises how irreplaceable are these works. But of recent years the tendency to buy these works of art and buildings has been accentuated. There is, particularly, one nation containing persons of great wealth who have paid this compliment to England and Scotland that they have been prepared, and are prepared, to pay great prices for our national possessions. If I may just instance one or two examples of each type of national treasure which has been recently removed from this country, I think I shall make out a case at any rate for a very serious consideration by this House of this question. First of all, if we take the case of the removal of a whole house, we have had recently the case of the Priory House at Warwick, a beautiful old building which has been totally removed, and I believe is to be erected, or actually has been re-erected, in the United States of America, though whether it has been erected with improvements or alterations I do not know.
Then there is the case of Agecroft Hall, Salford, which I believe has not actually departed this realm, but is about to go: we find exactly the same thing happening—and perhaps this is equally serious a destruction—to parts of ancient buildings, such as ceilings, panellings, and other irreplaceable old fixtures and structures connected with buildings. There is the famous case of Tattershall Castle, where, I understand, the mantelpieces, which were absolutely priceless and invaluable, were removed, and were actually on board ship to go to this favoured nation, when, through the munificence of the late Lord Curzon, they
were re-purchased and brought back and placed again in their original position. There is another case, that of Highlow House, in Suffolk, a beautiful old 15th century building, which was completely taken down and transhipped to America, except the bare shell.
When we pass from actual buildings and fixtures of those buildings to pictures and things of that kind, there, again, there is a constant flow of some of the most beautiful English works of art to America, most of which will certainly never come back again. This is particularly true of Gainsboroughs and Reynolds. The same is true of historic documents, ancient records, and ancient books, absolutely invaluable heritages for the understanding of the history of this country—and every patriot should have the greatest pride in their conservation—which are becoming the subject of traffic by art dealers and are being sold to the highest bidder.
There is already a precedent for dealing with this matter in the Ancient Monuments Act of 1913. Under that Act, there is power already given to the Commissioners of Works to schedule ancient monuments on the complaint or suggestion of certain bodies concerned in matters of art and the preservation of objects of antiquarian interest. There is power to schedule those monuments and to prevent them being moved from where they are. But one defect in that legislation is that it is expressly stated that it shall not apply to any structure which is capable of being used as a dwelling-house. There are other matters to be considered apart altogether from dwelling-houses, and what I wish to suggest to the House and to the Government is this. I quite agree that this is a matter of very great difficulty and requires very great consideration and the best possible advice from all interested persons, and I would like to suggest, if the House be good enough to allow me to present the Bill and be even more kind to allow me to have a Second Reading, that the Bill should then be referred to a Select Committee of expert persons who have studied this question in its entirety, and that they should recommend to this House exactly what form the Measure should finally take. I do not in the least wish to shut my eyes to the difficulties of practical administration of such a Measure, though I would
point out that in Italy they have a very stringent law in force at the present time to prevent the exportation of works of art, so that the thing is quite practicable and feasible. Although, generally speaking, it is not perhaps always appropriate to use this method for the presentation of a Bill, the mischief seems to be so great and the body of agreement so general that something ought to be done to prevent the destruction of these priceless old documents, buildings, and works of art, that I have ventured to ask leave to introduce a Bill for this purpose.

Mr. RYE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?

Mr. RYE: Yes. Although I recognise the loss to this country of any works of art, whether in the nature of pictures, furniture, or old buildings which are removed and sent abroad, I venture to suggest that the House should hesitate before taking a step which will interfere with the liberty of the subject and the privileges which we to-day possess. After all, we are supposed to live in a free country, and it seems to me that we shall be going rather far if we pass a Measure which will prevent anyone from dealing in any way which he or she may think fit with his or her own possessions. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Bill emphasised certain facts in connection with Warwick Priory, and the House was led to believe, or at all events I should have been led to believe had I not known, the facts, that here was the wanton destruction and the wanton pulling down of an old historic building for the express purpose of taking the materials of such building and re-erecting those materials in America.
The real facts in regard to Warwick Priory are that that house was offered on at least two occasions to the Corporation of Warwick on what, I believe, to be reasonable terms to be used by the corporation for the benefit of the people of Warwick, and the corporation declined on each accosion to buy that old and historic house. Then in July last year the owner, not being able to dispose of his residence, not being able to find a purchaser, and not finding it convenient to live in a large house, so I am informed,
put up the materials, or rather the panellings and the decorations, by public auction. At that auction the internal materials, such as the panellings and ceilings, were sold, and the house was to all intents and purposes dismantled. In October of last year there was a second sale at which the remaining materials, such as the outer walls, the windows and the lead on the roof, were offered, and it was following that sale that an American gentleman came forward and bought what in effect were the débris of Warwick Priory, and then decided to take the materials over to America. If that had not transpired, we should have seen Warwick Priory in a dismantiled condition falling to ruin and decay, we should have seen those materials taken away from time to time and probably used in the construction of modern residences in England. Part of the materials might have been used for the foundations of houses or the foundations of roads. I venture to suggest to the House that, in those circumstances, it was better that those old materials should have been taken away piecemeal, carefully packed and numbered, and should have been erected in a foreign land, so that someone should have seen it in its old form with all its old charm rather than that the materials should have been scattered over the face of the land.
I have had experience of another house in the country. I remember a very fine Elizabethan house which had become unsuitable for residence by virtue of its situation in front of a cattle market and by virtue of its size. That house was open to purchase by the local authority and they were not prepared to buy. It was afterwards offered, minus the panellings in three rooms which were to be

taken out, at a nominal sum of £60 a year to the local council for the purpose of being used as offices, or a public library, or a picture gallery, or for showing works of art, and the local council declined to take it even at that nominal rent. The result was that that house was pulled down and now no longer exists.

I venture to say that it is not reasonable to draw attention to a particular instance such as that of Warwick Priory and to suggest that anyone who possibly has the encumbrance of an old and out-of-date residence, however fine, shall not be entitled to exercise his ordinary rights in dealing with his property as he thinks fit. With regard to works of art, such as pictures, I wonder whether the Mover realises that many landowners in this country have the greatest possible difficulty owing to taxation in keeping up their fine houses which are open to the public. I think it is very possible that in a number of cases those houses are only kept going for the purpose, as it were, of public user by way of inspection by the owners being able to sell their works of art at great prices. If once we prohibit the sale of pictures and works of art, it may possibly be that a number of landowners in this country will find themselves unable to keep up those houses and they will fall into ruin and disrepair. For those reasons, I oppose this Bill.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the export from the United Kingdom of certain works of art and ancient or historic buildings and monuments.

The House divided: Ayes, 195: Noes, 144.

Division No. 42.]
AYES.
[4.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Briant, Frank
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Albery, Irving James
Broad, F. A.
Crawfurd, H. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Hugh


Baker, Walter
Caine, Gordon Hall
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Barnes, A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barr, J.
Charleton, H. C.
Day, Colonel Harry


Batey, Joseph
Clowes, S.
Dunnico, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cluse, W. S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Betterton, Henry B.
Compton, Joseph
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Connolly, M.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cove, W. G.
Fenby, T. D.


Gates, Percy
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lowth, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gillett, George M.
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Snell. Harry


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grace, John
Mackinder, W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Greenall, T.
McLean, Major A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stamford, T. W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stephen, Campbell


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, Major P. B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Groves, T.
Maxton, James
Taylor, R. A.


Grundy, T. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Montague, Frederick
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
Townend, A. E.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hardie, George D.
Nuttall, Ellis
Varley, Frank B.


Harrison, G. J. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Viant, S. P.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Owen, Major G.
Warne, G. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hayes, John Henry
Penny, Frederick George
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Philipson, Mabel
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pilcher, G.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wells, S. R.


Hilton, Cecil
Potts, John S.
Welsh, J. C.


Hirst, G. H.
Preston, William
Westwood, J.


Hirst W. (Bradford, South)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Whiteley, W.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Riley, Ben
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jacob, A. E.
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan Neath)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord
Windsor, Walter


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scrymgeour, E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Kelly, W. T.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wright, W.


Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Kirkwood, D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, E. W.



Lamb, J. Q.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lawson, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Sir Henry Slesser and Sir Gerald Hohler.


Lee, F.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)



Livingstone, A. M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hills, Major John Waller


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dennison, R.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A
Elveden, Viscount
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Huntingfield, Lord


Briscoe, Richard George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hurst, Gerald B.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. E. I.
Fermoy, Lord.
Kenyon, Barnet


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fielden, E. B.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Forrest, W.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bullock, Captain M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Goff, Sir Park
Looker, Herbert William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lougher, L.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grant, J. A.
Lumley, L. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Christie, J. A.
Gretton, Colonel John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hanbury, C.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Harland, A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cope, Major William
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Merriman, F. B.


Couper, J. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)




Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Rentoul, G. S.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thurtle, E.


Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Murchison, C. K.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Neville, R. J.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Warrender, Sir Victor


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Salmon, Major I.
Watts, Dr. T.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Oakley, T.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Womersley, W. J.


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Raine, W.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ramsden, E.
Tasker Major R. Inigo
Mr. Herbert Williams and Lieut.-Colonel Gadie.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Slesser, Sir John Simon, Mr. Noel Buxton, Sir Martin Conway, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Sir Evelyn Cecil, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Sir Gerald Hohler, and Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy.

WORKS OF ART AND ANTIQUITIES (PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL) BILL,

"to prohibit the export from the United Kingdom of certain works of art and ancient or historic buildings and monuments," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 26.]

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to the Chairman's Panel: Mr. Ellis Davies.

Report to lie upon the Table

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899 (PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to the Parliamentary Panel appointed under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899: Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:—
That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health and Unemployment Services, sundry Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, certain Expenses under the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I give an explanation of one or two matters referred to on pages 46 and 47 of the Supplementary Estimate. The first item of any considerable magnitude is for salaries, wages and allowances mainly in connection with the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, which was passed last year. This is the first time that this item has appeared in the Estimates. The amount that has been spent in this connection has been required to establish the scheme and to deal with the very large number of claims which have already been received. There has been considerable advance as far as this particular legislation is concerned, because the Widows and Orphans Scheme has been worked very largely as part of the National Health Insurance Scheme. In that way, I think it will be agreed that the Act has been economically administered.
There is also an item for insurance stamps. New stamps have had to be
printed. Another item is expenses under Sections 29 and 38 (8) of the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act. This is mainly to cover a very small honorarium to three distinguished gentlemen who are now acting practically as a court of appeal in connection with certain matters that arise in connection with decisions given by the Minister of Health. The Minister and myself are very much indebted to these gentlemen, who are practically giving their services in dealing with important matters of that kind. Another item refers to what is called the Central Index Register. That is part of the administration of National Health Insurance. A central Register was set up to facilitate the notification by Approved Societies to the respective Insurance Committees of changes of residence or status of members of Approved Societies with regard to medical benefit. Those who are interested in the administration of National Health Insurance know that the establishment of this Register has always been a matter of some difficulty. The item which has been put in this Supplementary Estimate indicates a new arrangement which I hope will make for economy in administration. For the first time, we are going to work this matter in conjunction with the Valuation Register. At the present time we have a Central Index Register and a Valuation Register. We have now come to the conclusion that it is time to stop this duplication of work, and under the new arrangement the two registers will be made one. This item appears as an indication of the new arrangement.
The only other matter to which I need refer is the item G 8, which appears at the bottom of page 47, and refers to "grants in respect of unemployment schemes." We are asking for £100,000 for an additional provision which is being made in respect of capital works undertaken by local authorities, statutory bodies, and Public Utility Companies and approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord St. Davids. The reason why this extra item appears is that many of the schemes have progressed much more rapidly than was anticipated when the original Estimate was framed, and it is estimated that a further sum of £100,000 will be required
in that connection. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will be able to answer any questions on that matter. Up to the end of January approval had been given, since the initiation of this particular administration, to 7,500 schemes of local authorities and other statutory bodies, involving a total expenditure of approximately £80,000,000 a very considerable figure. Approval has also been given to public utility schemes involving a total expenditure of £3,500,000.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What kind of work?

Sir K. WOOD: Two kinds of work—non-revenue producing work, such as roads, sewerage and sewage disposal, and parks and recreation grounds, and revenue producing works, such as docks, electricity undertakings, water undertakings tramways and gas. Those are the main classes of work covered. With reference to Appropriations-in-Aid, we shall get a refund of the cost of administration of the Central Index Register, practically in full. The reason why the figures do not quite agree is that the balance is carried over to next year. Under Section 12 we recover a sum of £184,000, being the amount of the expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the Contributory Pensions Act. There are certain savings which we have been able to effect in connection with the administration generally. I am asking for a token vote of only £10. I hope that the Committee will consider that the work, particularly in connection with widows' pensions, has been well and economically done. From all accounts which we are getting at the Ministry the machinery is running smoothly, and whilst, of course, there must be a number of claims rejected, as is the case in every scheme of the kind, I can report that up to to-day no less than 120,000 claims have been admitted in respect of widows' pensions. Therefore, I commend this Vote to the House.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What is the period covered by the figure of £80,000,000, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred?

Sir K. WOOD: From the initiation of the scheme.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
I move this Amendment primarily in order to draw attention to the Miscellaneous Grants, G.8, in respect of unemployment schemes. We have had in operation for some years an established system for aiding local authorities to provide schemes of work as a contribution to the solution of a great national problem. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that since the inception of these grants work to the value of £80,000,000 has been done or is being done; but it seems to me that at this stage, during the trade depression, with the depleted resources of local authorities, with the added difficulties and the burdens of the Poor Law, there is a very strong case for more generous financial assistance from the State to local authorities who are promoting schemes of work. The Government, however, have not improved the financial terms offered to local authorities. On the contrary, they appear to be tightening up the conditions under which grants are made, in such a way as to bar out local authorities who would otherwise be glad to carry out schemes of work. The money which we are to vote to-day will, I assume, cover grants made under the earlier arrangements and grants made under the new arrangements.
Nearly a year ago local authorities were pressed to prepare schemes of work for the Winter of 1925–26. Quite naturally, not being informed to the contrary, they assumed the good faith of the Government, and assumed that the conditions which had hitherto operated would continue to operate. Those who are acquainted with local administration know that the preparation of these schemes involves a considerable amount of work and the expenditure of considerable time. By the time many of these schemes had been brought to the stage when they might have been put into operation, a bombshell fell among the local authorities in the shape of the Circular letter of 15th December, in which they were told virtually that the schemes that had been prepared would, at any rate as regards the majority of them, no longer be eligible for assistance.

The CHAIRMAN: This is an item for £100,000. I am not clear, on the face of it, whether it relates to former schemes that were sanctioned without the limit-
ing conditions of the Circular, or whether it refers in part to schemes approved since the issue of the Circular. Can any light be thrown on that?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The £100,000 is required for the provision of interest on loans. The greater part of it, and, for all I know, the whole of it, will be in respect of loans raised before 15th December, the date of the Circular. But I am not in a position to say, and do not say, that it is not possible that loans have been raised between 15th December and the end of the financial year, for the service of which some of this £100,000 will be required. That is the position.

The CHAIRMAN: In the circumstances there is a doubt in the matter, and I must allow the discussion to proceed. I wished only to safeguard the principle that discussion on Supplementary Estimates must be limited to the increase.

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no desire whatever to limit the discussion. I wish only to give, to the best of my ability, the position as I understand it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was saying that local authorities, who had not expected any alteration in the conditions of the system, were astounded at the new conditions which were imposed. It is perfectly true that the Minister of Labour in November last did hint that it was the intention of the Government to make certain alterations in the conditions of grant, but I am certain that the attention of local authorities was not drawn to that fact, and, from what I have heard from large and important local authorities, I am pretty certain that they were quite unaware of the proposed changes until the circular letter was received. The result of that circular letter was to create a state of consternation and uncertainty, which is undoubtedly leading to the holding up of schemes and to a diminution in the amount of employment that might be available. As soon as the matter became public the representatives of local authorities were interviewed by the newspapers.
In the case of Birmingham we are told that, up to date, relief schemes estimated to cost nearly £750,000 have been
approved by the City Council for submission to the Grants Committee. According to the Lord Mayor, the Government had twice urged the local authority to promote schemes of work. Last autumn works costing approximately £500,000 were accordingly recommended, mainly on account of roads, sewers and bridges, in connection with public works and town planning, and the Lord Mayor at the time said:
You may judge of our surprise when, after spending a considerable time in preparing these details and applying for the necessary forms, the Unemployment Grants Committee informed us that in their opinion the existing circumstances did not warrant approval of any further schemes.
That was in a town where unemployment still exists. The same situation occurred in Sheffield, where the chairman of the finance committee said publicly that the effect of the Circular would be to stop the whole of Sheffield's £200,000 worth of winter relief work. That is a very serious state of affairs. The same remark applies to practically every large town in the country. In the case of Manchester the local authority passed a very strong resolution against the change, and said that the only effect of it would be to limit the amount of work that the local authorities could do, "although the extent of unemployment in the city is still serious." The very day when the Circular of 15th December first became public, which was early in January, there appeared in the press this statement relating to Manchester, whose schemes had at that point been turned down and rejected by the Unemployment Grants Committee:
An advertisement for six unskilled men by the English Texilose Company, whose works are at Trafford Park, Manchester, led to a threatening situation this morning. At six o'clock applicants began to arrive, and at seven o'clock there were 500 men. At 9.30, when the officials of the firm appeared, there were over 2,000.
There was nearly a breach of the peace. 2,000 men applied for six jobs at the very time that the Unemployment Grants Committee had rejected the schemes of the Manchester City Council. I submit that in circumstances such as those which prevailed in Manchester, the Government, so far from discouraging the Manchester City Council ought to have given them increased financial assistance. The Circular does not alter the terms of the loan, but imposes two conditions
which, in fact, will bar out the schemes of a number of local authorities. The first condition is that the schemes submitted by local authorities must be schemes "which would not otherwise be undertaken for a considerable period, ordinarily more than five years." The second condition is that "the unemployment which it is sought to relieve must be exceptional." I submit that the first condition is an arbitrary one, raising a question which is largely hypothetical and which the Unemployment Grants Committee will have the utmost difficulty in answering. How is anyone to say whether or not a scheme which is put forward "would not otherwise have been undertaken for a considerable period, ordinarily more than five years"? It appears to be a device for leaving the judgment entirely in the hands of people who have been instructed by the Government that this expenditure is to be reduced. The second condition is that the unemployment is to be exceptional. What is "exceptional" unemployment? Is it not exceptional in Manchester, when 2,000 men apply for six jobs? Yet Manchester is told that her carefully prepared schemes are to be rejected because they do not fall within the new conditions.
We suggest that the long-continued drain on the resources of local authorities, and the fact that unemployment is not their problem, but is a national problem, make the strongest possible case for greater latitude in the conditions applying to schemes of this kind, instead of more restricted conditions. The only effect of these restrictive conditions will be to cripple local authorities in carrying out perfectly useful and desirable public works, and the result of the inability of the local authorities to carry out those schemes will be to drive upon the Poor Law an increasing number of unemployed people. That process, in fact began last year. People were then being driven to the boards of guardians because of the unemployment situation, and, to-day, the guardians are bearing an increasing burden in this respect. In the Bedwelty Union, at the end of 1924, 7,600 insured workers and their dependants were receiving outdoor relief. At the end of December, 1925, the number had grown to 12,690, and the average monthly cost of out-relief to that authority had in-
creased in the year from £14,059 to £25,097, or nearly double. Those figures can be paralleled in other towns. In Cardiff the amount of out-relief per month increased from £1,740 to £4,886 between the end of 1924 and the end of last year. In Gateshead, a year ago, about 1,400 people—unemployed workers and their dependants—were receiving out-relief and at the end of last year the the number was actually well over 21,000 and the out-relief bill in respect of these people had increased from £220 to £5,110. I could give other cases of a similar kind showing that last year, notwithstanding the pretence made in this House that there was an improvement in trade, the burden on local authorities through the Poor Law was actually increasing. Yet at this stage, when local authorities are almost driven to desperation, the Government has decided—no doubt as part of a general economy campaign—that the help given to local authorities must be reduced.
I understand that representatives of the local authorities recently met the Prime Minister and discussed the whole question and I gather that the argument of the Government—it was used by the Minister of Labour in the House last year—is that when there is a prospect of reviving trade, our limited supplies of capital ought to be devoted to productive industry. I am not sure how far our productive industry is at the moment crying out for fresh capital. I am not sure that the available supply of capital is quite as small as the Government argument would suggest, but my point is that the effect of the diversion of capital from he local authorities—in respect of loans provided' for productive and non-productive services—will be inevitably to drive more people on the Poor Law, to increase the poor rate and to take more money out of industry than you can put into it by the method which the Government suggest. It is a very clumsy way of dealing with the problem. Is it to be supposed that any money which may be saved in this way will go to Bedwellty or Cardiff or Middlesbrough or Barrow? Not at all. Even if that industrial capital were available, those areas will be left with an increasing burden of rates which is far more destructive to industry than national taxation can be. Whatever may be its effect in the long run, the immediate
effect of the Government policy—the effect during the coming twelve months—will be an increase in the burden of local rates and consequently an increase in the burden on struggling industries. We are still faced with a situation in which we have a large number of unemployed and everybody agree® that useful work is better than idleness for them. Even if there were only five per cent. of men unemployed in any town, I should still regard that as serious enough to call for special assistance from the State to help in the provision of relief work.
I hope that during the Debate we may have a reasoned defence of the Government's policy in this matter. I hope that we may look for some revision or postponement of the new conditions which are bearing so hardly on the local authorities—though I am not sure that we can entertain that hope in the face of the Prime Minister's statement to the local authorities. We must, however, fight this new parsimony on the part of the Government from these benches. So long as there are more than one million unemployed, the Government ought not to discourage those local authorities who, in the past, have so courageously taken enormous burdens upon themselves in order to provide work for their citizens. Our view is that their power to provide such work should be increased and not diminished. They should be urged to go on, and so far from the conditions being made more restrictive, the Government should give these authorities an increasing volume of assistance to enable them to make their contribution towards the solution of this great national problem.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I was responsible for initiating the policy of these grants—as far as I can recollect, it was in the autumn of 1921—I should like to be allowed to make a few observations upon the Vote. I understand from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that he is of opinion that part of this Vote deals not only with past commitments—I mean not only with commitments in preceding years which we cannot discuss—but also with new commitments during the course of the present year. I think he very clearly indicated that part of this £100,000 covers new commitments during the year.

Mr. BETTERTON: What I said was that I think it possible, though I cannot say so with certainty, that a part of the £100,000 will be in respect of commitments entered into between 15th December, the date of the circular, and the end of the financial year.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That raises an issue upon which I should like to make a few observations. I support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood), not so much for high grants—although I think they are inevitable—as for greater latitude in the objects upon which State assistance is to be expended. I think it is far too limited now in its scope, and not altogether the most useful method of spending the money. In 1921 when the House of Commons committed itself to this policy, everybody thought the period of unemployment would not last very long and that in a very short time there would be such an improvement in trade as would render it unnecessary to proceed with these grants as a constant, almost permanent policy and part of our machinery for years to come. That was the general opinion, not merely of those who advised the Government, but of the whole trading community. Nobody knows better than the Prime Minister, that the opinion of those who advised him at that time was that trade on the whole was likely to improve, at any rate in the course of a certain number of months. I think the right hon. Gentleman was then at the Board of Trade and there was no one who advised him at that time, that unemployment was going to last for years on a very large scale. But here it is, We have 1,000,000 unemployed and there is a certain stubbornness in the condition, a refractoriness which somehow or another does not seem to yield to treatment.
5.0 P.M.
Therefore, I have been appealing to the Government for some time to take that into consideration as a fundamental fact in connection with every expenditure which they may incur. I do not think this ought to be treated merely as a question of giving grants to local authorities. Here I see that not merely local authorities are subsidised, but public utility companies as well, and that is right. But that means that the Government themselves admit that it is not merely a local question for areas
where there is bad unemployment, but a national question. Could not they broaden that idea and treat the matter from that standpoint? I am told that in Germany, where the unemployment is very bad, they are making such use—I will not say taking advantage—as they can of unemployment to add to the permanent resources of the country, either by the reclamation of land or by drainage, or by means of public works, which could not be undertaken during periods of prosperity because it would not pay the community to do so. Not only would it not pay the community to do so, but the labour would not be available for the purpose, for the labour would be much more usefully and profitably employed in industry under those conditions, and therefore it is a kind of work which could not be undertaken except in periods of unemployment. What will be the result? When Germany emerges from its period of unemployment, it will have used its unemployment for the permanent enrichment of its own resources.
I am rather making an appeal to the Government than a criticism. Is it not possible for them to reconsider this Vote altogether? I am speaking as one who was responsible for its initiation, when no adviser of mine in trade or finance could have told me it was going to last all these years. It was initiated in the autumn of 1921, that is 4½ years ago, and there was no man whom I consulted then who would have said to me that 4½ years' hence we would have a million and more out of work. Nobody realised quite what we were up against. We were acting upon that advice, but the Government know now. They have got the facts; they are established facts. I beg them not to give way to the kind of optimism which is quite useful in encouraging people not to lay down their arms, but which is fatal from the point of view of a decision of policy by the Government. I am asking for no declarations to-day, for it is a thing which has to be considered very carefully. I am very glad the Prime Minister is here. Is it not possible for him to reconsider the whole of this Vote, and, instead of making it a Vote for the purpose of subsidising local authorities to deal with exceptional conditions in their particular area, to consider whether it is not possible for the Government to make
their grant from the point of view of works which will be of permanent use to the nation as a whole, works of a character which could not be undertaken in periods of prosperity, but which can usefully be taken in hand when you have got a surplus of labour on hand?
The danger is this, and I do not think we all realise it. We talk about £1,300,000 being voted here, and about £80,000,000 being spent by the local authorities. That is not the greatest cost to the nation. The most expensive, the greatest cost of unemployment is the demoralisation of labour. You had for four years hundreds of thousands of men, young men largely, out of work. There is nothing which is more disastrous to a community than that. The hon. Gentleman talks about poor relief, and about grants and about doles. I agree with him that it is infinitely better to employ them even at the expense of a contribution of this kind than to leave them absolutely idle. The document which the Government issued a short time ago—I think was issued by the Ministry of Labour—showing the ages of the men who were out of work, is a very terrible document. Under ordinary conditions it is the more inefficient, it is the older men who are left out and the efficient men are provided with work and kept in the factories, but unemployment now is of a kind that makes it impossible to give work to the new men who are coming in. You cannot dismiss the men who are already in employment in order to take in the young fellows of 14, 15 and 16. What is the result? Those men are going on from year to year without learning the habits of industry and work. I am told in every part of the country that that is having a most demoralising effect upon the young people. That is the real cost of unemployment.
I am asking the Prime Minister whether it is not possible to appoint a Departmental Committee or a Cabinet Committee to consider whether there is not something in the way of public utility works, not necessarily by local authorities, in either Sheffield or Bedwellty or anywhere else, but work of a national character, which can be undertaken which will permanently improve and increase the resources of the nation, make it more powerful, make it richer when it is over, something that may
never pay, perhaps, 5 per cent., 4 per cent., or 3 per cent., but which will have its value later on? I trust he will be able to do that and to consider the possibilities. To-day there was a question put to the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the sum of money which is to be spent upon drainage. That is very useful. I do not know whether that will come under this Vote or under what Vote, but that is the class of work which could be undertaken, which is undertaken in other European countries. I hope that the Prime Minister will give a promise, at any rate, to look into the matter and to see whether the time has not come to make a step forward.
May I point out, not by way of boasting, that there has really been no new idea initiated in this problem for years? We have the Trade Facilities Scheme; we debated that yesterday. To-day, we have this grant to the local authorities. There is nothing new, but there is a very great change in the conditions. This unemployment insurance, these trade facilities, these grants to local authorities, are the same things. Is not it possible for the Prime Minister to get a committee to work upon the question? Has not the time arrived for him to reconsider the facts, as we ought to do having regard to the addition of 150,000 a year to the labour market? There was a boast made by the Minister of Labour that we are absorbing those. We may be absorbing those, but we are leaving the million practically where it was. That is the trouble. You have got to absorb another 150,000 this year before you begin to bring down this figure of unemployment. Is it not possible for the Prime Minister to promise—not any definite schemes, that would be unfair—whether he would not consider the possibility of whether something could not be done on a larger scale, of a different character, on a bigger and wider prospect altogether than has been done up to the present, with a view to utilising this surplus labour and preventing these hundreds of thousands of young men going on, year by year, without ever acquiring the habit of work?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken supported dealing with this question on national lines. I would like in
some supplementary remarks to show how unequal is the present method of dealing with it. The importance of dealing with the question on national lines has been stressed many times in this House, and that surely is emphasised by the fact that the burden of unemployment is so unequal in different parts of the country. You are placing on the poorest and weakest districts the heaviest burdens. Whereas you have an average percentage of unemployment of 11 per cent. throughout the country, you have in the shipbuilding areas in the north-east coast nearly every other man unemployed. It is not a question of a month, but for months, almost for years, that has been the case. In the marine engineering trades on the north-east coast you have every third man out of work, and to expect the local authority to deal with that question on ordinary lines is placing a burden upon them which is far beyond what they can possibly bear. I have dealt with the question of comparison by trades. If you take another comparison, comparison by districts, you find that the differentiation is as great. In the Durham area, according to the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," you have over 20 per cent. unemployed, whereas, if you go to a part of the country which is not industrial, you find that in the area of Warwickshire it is 1.9 per cent., and in Derbyshire 2 per cent. That illustrates the very great inequality of the burdens of this question of unemployment. Therefore, I want to appeal to the Government that they should follow the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman and deal with it on national lines rather than on local lines.
If you take another series of figures given by the Ministry of Labour Gazette for the last month, the figures in the industrial areas of the number relieved, you find that there is a very big difference between one area and another. If you take the average number relieved for the industrial areas of England and Wales, it is, according to the latest returns, 362 per thousand, but on Teeside, and Tyneside that number is 717 per thousand, more than double the rest of the average of the areas of industrial England.
See the result of these figures in the differentiation in rates. The burden is hitting the poorest districts most heavily. In Middlesbrough, which I have the
honour to represent, the rates are 18s. 8d.; in Rotherham 17s. 3d.; in Merthyr Tydvil they are 26s. Compare those in residential areas like Bournemouth, 8s. 2d.; Blackpool, 7s. 4d.; and Southport, 8s. 3d. Those figures are reasons why this question should be dealt with on national and not on local lines. Not only is the burden very heavy on those very areas, but the worst effect of it is that these heavy rates retard the recovery of trade which is so essential.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going a little wide. He is rather going into the question of rating.

Mr. THOMSON: I was trying to give an argument showing why the Government should make an increase. I am rather showing why this Supplementary Estimate is justified, because this difference of burden according to rating is hitting these districts, whereas if the local rates had been less the industries would have a chance of recovery. I wonder if we realise the amount of money spent since the Armistice in the way of unemployment relief, out-of-work donation, and Poor Law relief. According to figures supplied recently by various Government Departments, the total sum amounts to nearly £400,000,000 paid away in those various directions—paid away without any service whatever in return.

The CHAIRMAN: A general discussion could not arise under any of these items. It must have some direct relation to grants in respect of unemployment schemes. The whole question of Poor Law relief and local burdens and general provision for unemployment does not arise.

Mr. THOMSON: According to the figures given the other day by the Minister of Labour in answer to a question, the total number employed under the various schemes in December, 1925, was 33,280, as compared with 38,605 a year ago. That shows a reduction of over 5,000 men employed on these various relief schemes. At the same time, the number of the unemployed throughout the country had increased, because in December, 1925, we had 11 per cent. of unemployment, as compared with 9 per cent. in the year before, and while unemployment was going up, the relief through the Unemployment Grants Committee was going down. I submit that
there is no reason for this decrease in the amount of grants at the same time that unemployment was increasing. The amount of loans sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the period October to January, 1925, was £7,250,000, as compared with £9,250,000 in the corresponding period of the previous year. Again, the alteration was in the wrong direction, for instead of there being a decrease in the amount of money granted to local authorities under Unemployment Grants Committee schemes, we should have had an increase corresponding to the increase in unemployment. Therefore, I wish to join in the appeal which has been made that, instead of cutting down these grants, they should be increased, and that there should be a withdrawal of the Circular of 15th December. It is impossible for local authorities to comply with those conditions. Who can tell whether work will be in hand during the next five years? Unless local authorities can have more rather than less assistance, it will be impossible for them to go on.
Reference has been made to the money spent in various towns in the distressed areas. In Middlesbrough we have spent over £1,000,000 under the Unemployment Grants Committee, and unless we can get an increased percentage of assistance it is impossible for us to go on. In a town of over 130,000 inhabitants, with rates at 18s. 8d., that £1,000,000, with interest on the expenditure, is equal to a rate of 1s. 8d. in the £, and that is bringing us to the breaking point. In addition, the administration of unemployment benefit has sent up the amount of men on the local rates by over 1,000 a week, which is equal to another rate of 1s. 8d. in the £, and, therefore, we have really got to the breaking point, and unless the Government can come forward with considerable assistance, instead of reducing the grants which it is giving, I am afraid the position of many of the towns on the Northeast coast will be a very black one in the near future.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister suggested, in reply to a deputation that went to him last week, that not so many schemes had been put forward, and, therefore, he seemed to think that there was not the same need. I submit that the reason why, in some cases, schemes have not been put forward
is that the local authorities cannot afford to go on increasing their rates by these schemes. The amount of grant from the Unemployment Grants Committee works out at only 31 per cent. It looks all very well to say on paper that you are giving 75 per cent. for half the loan period and 50 per cent. for revenue-producing schemes, but when you analyse it out, you find you only get less than one-third of the total cost, leaving two-thirds to be borne by the local authorities, and I submit that it is much better to spend even more money on providing useful work, on schemes of a beneficial character, than to drive the men on to poor relief. There seems to be a certain prejudice against the term "relief work." It seems almost as if you were making work merely for the sake of finding employment; but that is not so.
As the Parliamentary Secretary read out, the various types of work for which the grant can be made are works of a really useful character which would be valuable assets in years to come, such as improved transport, improved roads, tramways, waterworks, afforestation, reclamation of foreshore, and docks. All those types of work have been sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee, and I submit that the local authorities and the Government themselves have by no means exhausted the amount of works of that kind which could be put in hand. It is not a question of turning watchmakers or factory workers on to work to which they are not used. In those areas where unemployment is heaviest, in the heavy iron and steel districts, it is perfectly natural labour for shipyard and iron workers to turn to the navvying in connection with roadmaking. After a very few weeks they get practically skilled at the job, and, therefore, they are doing work to which they are accustomed, and it is work of a very useful character. I wish to join in the appeal that has been made, that local authorities should have more sympathetic treatment, because they are bearing burdens which are beyond their carrying. They have borne the heat and burden of the day manfully for the last five years, and they are really getting to the breaking point, and I submit that they deserve more sympathetic consideration than they have yet had at the hands of the Government.

Mr. BETTERTON: I will deal with some of the criticisms that have been made in respect of the item of my hon. Friend's Estimate which relates to grants in respect of unemployment schemes. As the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) truly reminded us, these grants have been in existence since, I think, 1920 or 1921, and the conditions under which they are made are four in number. The Committee has power either to make a grant of 75 per cent. of the interest charged, including sinking fund, for half the period of the loan, subject to a maximum period of 15 years for non-revenue-producing works; or, for revenue-producing works, it may make a grant of 50 per cent. for 15 years or for the period of the loan, whichever period is the shorter; or, thirdly—although this is not strictly relevant to this Estimate. I may perhaps be permitted to mention it—it may, in respect of schemes financed out of revenue, make a grant of 75 per cent. towards the wages cost; and there is a fourth alternative, under which it may make a grant under certain limited conditions to public utility companies.
As I have already explained, this £100,000 for which we are now asking in this Supplementary Estimate relates only to the first two conditions to which I have referred. The terms of assistance under which this grant was made from the beginning were always, first, that the distress should be exceptional, and, secondly, that the work should be accelerated. Those conditions were, as I say, inherent in the system from the very beginning, as they are now, and it was always intended that these grants should be really grants for the relief of unemployment. As year follows year, it is obvious that the numbers of cases that you could truly call accelerated cases must tend to diminish as we continue the process of giving grants for that purpose, and the Committee has found on more than one occasion that there has been a mere substitution of one kind of work for the other; it has found itself doing work which a local authority in a normal case would be doing for itself; and in other oases it has found that there was in some districts an actual difficulty in finding men to carry out the work.
I may say at once that there is no task which appears more difficult, or
more necessary, or, if I may say so, more thankless, than that of endeavouring to apply to the very human problem of unemployment certain economic laws which are no respecters either of party, or of government, or of country. One of those laws which has been realised, I think, by everybody who has been faced with responsibility in this matter, is this, that if you draw off from the normal channels of trade large sums which would be otherwise spent in trade, and expend them in extemporised measures which are only at the best palliatives, whereas you may take off men from the rates in one direction, you put them on at the other end of the scale. That doctrine has never been more clearly expounded than it was by the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald). When—speaking, no doubt, with a deep sense of responsibility, because it was the very first speech which he made when he stood at this box after he became Prime Minister—he was announcing the deliberate policy of the Government in this matter, he made this statement, with every word of which I agree. Speaking on the 12th February, 1924, he said:
I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Government have no intention of drawing off from the normal channels of trade large sums for extemporised measures which can only be palliatives. That is the old, sound, Socialist doctrine, and the necessity of expenditure for subsidising schemes in direct relief of unemployment will be judged in relation to the greater necessity for maintaining undisturbed the ordinary financial facilities and resources of trade and industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1924; col. 760, Vol. 169.]
At the time when the right hon. Gentleman felt it his duty, as, indeed, it was, to' remind the House at the beginning of his tenure of office what was the true doctrine in this matter, may I remind the Committee of what was the financial position with regard to these schemes? The Reports of the Unemployment Grants Committee come out and are made up to the end of June in each year, and so, when he made that considered declaration on the 12th February, 1924, the right hon. Gentleman had before him, no doubt, the Report of the Committee which is dated the previous June, that is, June, 1923. I find that at that date the total Exchequer burden, as stated in the Report in connection with these grants, was £14,000,000, and the actual
amount of loans sanctioned at that date was £28,837,000. The next year those two figures rose, respectively, to £22,000,000, and just over £48,000,000. Last year they had risen to £30,000,000, total Exchequer burden, and £63,607,000 loans sanctioned. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman said in February, 1924, when he warned us of the danger of taking this money from the normal channels of trade, is intensified more than twofold, if you consider what the financial position is to-day. I might remind the Committee, that from June, 1925, to January, 1926, the figures of loans sanctioned have been further increased by a sum of nearly £10,000,000. Therefore, I think that we were bound to consider this matter further, to call the attention of the Committee to it again, in order that the Committee might realise the position we are in, and again to remind them of that fundamental economic doctrine of which the right hon. Gentleman reminded this House more than two years ago.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said, there are some areas so necessitous, and there are some districts where the distress is so acute, that it is necessary to impinge somewhat upon this principle which I have just stated, and it is in endeavouring to meet such cases as those that, in the Circular-of December, it is made perfectly plain that where it is clear that the distress is exceptional on the one hand, and where the work proposed is to be accelerated on the other, in such cases applications will continue to receive attention.
I think it was the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) who asked what was "exceptional," and how you were to judge it. He, I am sure, with his experience, will be the first to realise that it is quite impossible to lay down some binding definition. Each case must be considered on its merits. For instance, in a district where distress has been exceptional, and where unemployment has been very high for several years, or over a long period, where one industry is suffering particular hardship, the conditions which would apply to such oases would not apply to another district where, perhaps, the distress is not in respect of one particular industry, and where it has not, perhaps, been of the same duration.
I only say this in order to make it clear that each one of these cases must be considered by the committee and judged on its merits.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Does that exceptional treatment refer to the five years' limit in distress areas? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the five years' limit practically bars even distress areas from getting assistance?

Mr. BETTERTON: That would be a point, no doubt, that the Committee would take into account in considering these applications. On the other point which, I think, was raised also by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, he said, if I understood it rightly, "You, the Government, invited local authorities to make proposals. Local authorities in many cases not only made proposals, but incurred expense, relying on the representations of the representatives whom you sent down." That, shortly, is the point which he made. Now that is exactly the point, or one of the points, which was made by the deputation which was received by the Prime Minister on Friday last, and I think I might read what he said:
While he made it plain that the Circular of 15th December could not be withdrawn, he undertook to confer with his colleagues, in the light of what had been said, with a view to the sympathetic examination of schemes that had been prepared in response to the Circular issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee in March of last year.
And, of course, my right hon. Friend, having given that undertaking, will see that it is carried out. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs asked us to withdraw this Vote. Of course, that, as he would be the first to realise on reflection, is quite impossible. It being the Supplementary Estimate, the money voted on the original Estimate has already been spent, and I am afraid that we could not withdraw the Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody here the difficulty of providing new schemes or new methods of dealing with this difficult problem, and everything he suggested, and everything the Government can think of, is being considered in this connection. So far as the actual Circular is concerned, I can only give the answer which my right
hon. Friend gave the other day, and say again that, while giving sympathetic consideration to those schemes which have already been prepared, for the reasons that I have endeavoured to give, he is unable to withdraw the Circular.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure that the Committee will have listened with considerable interest to the reply of the Minister. I feel certain, too, that Members on this side of the Committee, at any rate, will have come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has not carried us very much further on the question at issue. But I do not rise to pursue the subject which has already been touched upon. I desire rather to divert the attention of the Committee, if I may, to other items appearing in the Supplementary Estimate, and I propose to submit a series of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. There is a sum here of £60,000 in respect of salaries and wages in connection with the administration of the Widows' Pensions Scheme. The first point I desire to make is this. Complaints have reached me that the appointments in connection with the administration of this scheme were not advertised; and I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can tell us, in the first place, where these members of the staff are recruited from, where was the advertisement inserted, and what is the number of the staff employed? It will be noted that this money is recoverable from the Fund established in connection with the scheme by way of contribution paid weekly by employers and employed.
The question arises here, too, as to the amount to be paid, not only by way of wages and salaries to members of the staff who administer the scheme, but I should very much like the hon. Member to tell the Committee what is the amount payable to the approved societies for investigation. It will be understood, of course, that before any pension is paid under the new scheme, the approved societies in many cases will provide information to the Minister in order that he may decide whether the pension is payable or not. I noticed from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman that 118,000 claims have already been settled; but I understood from the figures given the other day that the number of awards which were then in suspense would, if favourably settled, bring the figure very
much higher than that. I desire to know, further, how many claims have been turned down by the Ministry, and how many are still in suspense in respect of cases up to the 4th January, 1926? There is one other point in regard to the staff. I should be pleased to know whether the staff are temporary or permanently employed, and whether they are regarded now as members of the ordinary Civil Service staff. The hon. Gentleman has also pointed out that there is a small sum here of £100 as remuneration or gratuity to three medical men who are acting as a court of appeal in settling these cases.

Sir K. WOOD: Not medical men—legal men.

Mr. DAVIES: That does not destroy the point I desire to make. I asked a question of the Minister of Health the other day as to what had been done to appoint assessors or referees to decide doubtful claims under this scheme, and was informed that there were three or four legal gentlemen already appointed. I understood, however, during the protracted proceedings when the Bill went through, that there was a promise—I am not sure that it was very definitely made—that when these appointments were to be made, one or more of the persons to decide cases of this kind, and who would form the Court of Appeal, would be women. The argument was especially used on this side that women referees or assessors should be appointed because nearly all the cases that came to be dealt with under the scheme up to the 4th January last were cases of women and children In view of that important fact, I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman whether the Minister has yet appointed any women referees or assessors, or whether it is the intention of the Ministry to appoint women to such posts. It will be remembered that there are women now legally qualified, so that the argument cannot be used against their appointment that we have no legally trained women to do this sort of work. The Minister in his opening statement referred to the Central Index Register, and I agree with him entirely that this is a great improvement in the administration of the National Health Insurance Scheme. I have been wondering, however, whether the register will in any
way provide a basis for actuarial calculations under the Widows' Pensions-Scheme. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to let us have some information on that score.
I have only one or two other points to raise. When the hon. Gentleman is giving us information as to the staff employed in England in connection with the Widows' Pension Scheme, he might perhaps give us information also as to the number of staff employed under the Welsh Board of Health; for although I represent an English constituency, I will venture that very pertinent question about Wales. In recruiting the members of the staff of the Welsh Board of Health under this scheme, was there any qualification stipulated that the members of the staff could understand and speak Welsh? I am very anxious that in any public appointments in Wales those appointed should understand and speak Welsh.

Mr. MacLAREN: Look out for the petty cash book.

Mr. DAVIES: Then there is the item at the foot of the Supplementary Estimate—£2,890 Miscellaneous Receipts. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to give us some indication as to the details of these receipts. What do they include? Although my last is a very small point, it will nevertheless be important to those interested in the administration of this new scheme. I find that under the heading of the Welsh Board of Health there is a sum of £450 for travelling expenses. There is no similar item at all down in the Supplementary Estimate for England. Wales is very much smaller geographically than England—not smaller otherwise by the way—and it seems to me that if this £450 is necessary for travelling expenses in Wales, how is the English staff going to carry on its work without any travelling expenses at all?
In one word, I want to support what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that I think the administration of the Widows' Pension Scheme is being carried out with great satisfaction within the limits of the law. There is, of course, great dissatisfaction with the law as it stands, but it would be out of order for me to touch upon that now. I repeat, however, that great satisfaction prevails at the way in which the law has been administered. I wish the hon. Gentleman had just gone a step further, and when he
was thanking the special staff of the Ministry of Health, he had also given a word of praise to the staffs of the Approved Societies for the way they have helped in this connection. I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us replies to these several questions, for although they may not appear important to some hon. Members, they will interest very much indeed those who administer these schemes of social insurance.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I want, if I may, to ask the attention of the Minister to the North East coast and in particular for the moment to the town of Sunderland. In the view of some of us, that town and that portion of the county needs some assistance from the powers that be. Sunderland is, I believe, about the worst in respect to unemployment of any place on the North East coast and the present condition of affairs there has continued longer than elsewhere. There has been far more suffering there than one would care to speak about. The necessity for something being done has already been pointed out; and also with respect to-saving the land right along from Sunderland to Seaham Harbour, where coast erosion goes on from day to day, month to month, and year after year. Since my boyhood days many acres of the most valuable land has gone into the sea. We have asked time and again that something should be done to prevent it. Even the railways are getting to the point of danger, and, if things go on as they are some day we will wake up to find that millions of pounds will have to be spent where thousands would suffice now. We suggest that instructions should be given, and help, to do the work that is needed, and work that will be of great advantage in employing skilled men. We only want to save the situation. I cannot understand why something has not been done.
Last year Sunderland, despite the Unemployment Insurance Fund, had some 130 on the Poor Law books, and that 130 has risen to nearly 1,100 now. Something should be done, because the expenditure from the rates for unemployment has risen from £85 per week to £790. In the county of Durham, with the exception of Barnard Castle and a few other places, the rates are already far too high for the people to meet. In my own area, that of Houghton-le-Spring, where miners live,
the rates are 26s. in the £; consequently, whatever good will the people have there, they cannot help the poor people who are about them. I would ask the Minister to see to it that at least some portion of the work should be done under such schemes as the Minister could initiate, and tackle it at once with a view to saving the situation.
It is not very long since a deputation from the county of Durham waited upon the Minister of Transport with a view to asking permission to make a road from the south side of the county to the north side, to take the heavy traffic and so save the interference of that traffic with the towns, where it has considerably developed. This scheme was turned down. The county council feels sore about the matter, and are trying to get the Ministry to do something or allow them to go on with the scheme. May I also say, while on this question of roads, that more and more roads are wanted. New roads ought to be constructed. But the Ministry have turned down the county council because they say they have no funds. Work could be provided for many unemployed miners in road making, of which they could take advantage until they got back into their own industry.
I would ask the Minister to consider these matters so as to give us some relief from the terrible condition of things prevailing. It has not been for weeks, nor for months, but for years that many of our people have been suffering. Again, there is the question of the young people who are leaving school at 14. The position developing there is one that the country will have to face in the future, because our skilled artisans are seeking employment in other countries, and their numbers are being reduced, and what is to happen in the future in respect to this? I would ask the Government to consider if under some of these schemes they could not put work in hand that will be good for the country when some of us have passed away.
I would urge, therefore, that what schemes there are in the County of Durham ought to have the serious attention of the several Departments. I want to plead that the Department should not continue to take up the "dog-in-the-manger" attitude that has been taken up. If money cannot be found for schemes, money has to be found to keep
the people alive. I would rather have them working for the sake of their morale than I would pay them for doing nothing. There is national work, work in the national interest, which ought to be done by the nation, and not by the local authorities. Therefore, I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to do all he can here and now to save the situation.

Mr. PILCHER: A very strong case was made out by the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour against grants from the unemployment committee. In principle that case was based on the fact that this system of grants to unemployed areas was uneconomic. The idea now appears to be to drive both labour and capital into the normal channels of employment rather than to maintain them under conditions which now obtain. The system is uneconomic. That seems to be the basis of the case. Might I just test that by reference to one particular question in the country—one close to my own constituency? In Falmouth at the present moment there are very nearly 1,000 persons out of work—almost a record number for the comparatively small population there of some 12,000 or 13,000. The unemployment is due primarily to something which is almost fundamental and very deep-seated in connection with the shipping industry at the present moment. The depression in the Indian and Australian trade has resulted in fewer ships coming into Falmouth for repair, and the new conditions are resulting in fewer coasting vessels coming in for unlading. Unemployment will be more or less constant so long as the shipping trade remains in the unsettled condition it is in.
The unemployment is there and is likely to be there for some years to come. In the last two or three years it has been mitigated by a drainage scheme which has been in operation at Falmouth, but that drainage scheme is nearing an end. We have been led to hope and believe that in the adjoining constituency—in the same unemployment area—another drainage scheme would have been put into operation. But the local authority responsible for that has spent its money, exactly as the Parliamentary Secretary has described, and I was informed a few days ago by the Minister of Labour that no sanction would be given to that scheme at the present.
We have 3,000 men now out of employment in the Mid and Western unemployment area of Cornwall. We had the Chairman telling us a little while ago that unemployment benefit grants were costing £4,000 per week. In reply to a question I put on the Paper a few days ago I was told that the drainage scheme for Redruth and Illogan, estimated to cost £120,000, which the local authorities had been led to nope and believe would be put into operation, is not likely to be, on the ground of the purely economic considerations which are actuating the Government at the present time in regard to unemployment schemes. What I want to press upon the Parliamentary Secretary is, at any rate, to give careful consideration to the point as to whether it is not more economic to make these grants than to continue paying out £4,000 per week in a single area on account of unemployment!
6.0 P.M.
I should be the last person in the world to press for extravagance in any Department of the State. I am one of the younger Members of this House who were elected mainly—I am quite clear on that point—on the very real and determined pledges we gave to put a check, wherever we possibly could, to extravagance in every Department of the State. I hold by those pledges, I realise that I made them, and, in common with 200 or 300 other Members of my party, I am very anxious to give the Prime Minister every support in working for economy. My point is that this may not be real economy. Is the £4,000 being spent down there more or less economical than would be the £120,000, which would come partly from local expenditure and be partly provided by the Central Unemployment Committee? I should like to hear the comment of the Parliamentary Secretary on that particular case. The unemployment position down there is acute, and there is going on there what we have heard described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), deterioration of character, particularly among the younger members of society, who ought to be found work, and found it soon, so that they may become self-dependent members of society. We want to see that deterioration checked in the West of England quite as eagerly as hon.
Members wish to see it checked in the great industrial areas of the North.

Captain MOREING: The subject to which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) has just referred deeply concerns my own constituency. It is in that constituency that the scheme he spoke of would be put into operation. One of the grievances of the local authorities is that they were more or less invited by the Unemployment Grants Committee to submit suitable schemes, and that the letter from the central authority of 15th December appears to cut right across the policy previously followed. Although unemployment in that area is substantially better than it was four years ago, when, I believe I am correct in saying, Camborne and Redruth were described as one of the most necessitous areas in the country, the position is still far from satisfactory. A revival of the tin-mining industry, which has made great progress, cannot hope immediately to absorb anything like the amount of unemployed labour at present available. Unemployment there has been relieved partly by the scheme referred to by my hon. Friend, partly by a scheme which is now nearing completion in Camborne, and partly by the employment of a large amount of labour upon the road schemes of the county council, all of which are drawing to an end. The figures of unemployment must of necessity be greatly increased so soon as these schemes do end.
I would ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider, in the terms of the pledge given by the Prime Minister the other day, whether he cannot stretch a point in favour of this distressed area. I am not going to repeat at this stage the argument that the position of affairs is partly due to the action of the Government itself in connection with the supply of tin during the War, but undoubtedly the unemployment there has been exceptional and, to my mind, is still exceptional. I have a feeling that the criterion set up in deciding whether the employment to be relieved is to be regarded as exceptional is a little arbitrary in some cases. I hope the Department concerned will give fresh and favourable consideration to the scheme which has been put forward, which would go a long way to absorbing the unem-
ployed labour in the district, the figures of which are steadily mounting.

Mr. MONTAGUE: During the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour I could not help recalling to mind the old saying that the Devil can always quote Scripture to his own advantage. His reference to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald), the first one he made from the Treasury Bench when he became Prime Minister, seemed to me to be somewhat disingenuous. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman did say there was no advantage in taking away the normal resources of trade and industry for the purpose of applying the resources so obtained to palliative measures for dealing with unemployment, but the point—I remember the speech very well—of the speech was that it was against the consideration of palliative measures alone rather than that it invoked an economic law such as that referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. When I hear of economic laws, I am always reminded of the fact that whenever anything in the way of reaction and neglect has had to be justified in this House in the past the attempt was always made to justify it by a reference to so-called economic laws. I suggest that, whatever there may be in the phrase "economic law," an economic law is not quite the same thing as a law of Nature, it is not a physical law; and economic laws or no economic laws, we have got to face facts, and the first and most urgent fact before us to-day is the existence of the present large measure of unemployment and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) pointed out, the deplorable moral and physical effects arising from it.
Quite a number of economic laws have been scrapped in the past under the stress of necessity, and his particular appeal to economic laws appeared to be based upon the same kind of fallacy as—according to us on this side of the House—the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech of last year were based upon. What I refer to is the apparent assumption that there is trade available, that there is employment available, and that the application of capital to industry is possible, but that the
capital itself is not available. Surely that is not the case. As the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) pointed out, the unemployment in that port is not due to lack of capital, or to capital having been taken away from its normal service, but to certain economic facts concerning trade with India and the Far East. It is the same throughout the whole of our industry—if we could get the trade, if we could find profitable employment, it would not be capital that we should lack. The capital would be available. There is stagnation of capital, of course, but the stagnation is due to the lack of trade, and not to the impossibility of obtaining plenty of capital provided we could reach a normal state of affairs in trade and industry.
With regard to the unemployment grants, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that it is no use talking about economic laws and the necessity for economy in order to brush aside the problem of unemployment. There is no economy in neglecting the problem, in saying to this or that local authority, "Your scheme is not an economic one, "or," We cannot give you financial support for this particular scheme." It may be desirable that the Government should look at the question from a wider point of view, more from the national point of view. It ought to be "up to" the Minister to suggest to the local authorities profitable schemes, economic schemes, by which the unemployed could be partially absorbed. The thing ought not to be neglected by saying to the local authority, "You have not come forward with economic schemes, and therefore we cannot give you a grant."
In talking about economy, we must take a large number of things into consideration. If I may use an analogy—for the purposes of analogy only—I would like to refer to something which would not ordinarily come within the compass of this Debate. Suppose it was a question of putting people on the land of this country, a question of training men to become efficient agricultural workers, and so helping to solve the unemployment problem by colonising the land of the country. It might easily be said that that would not be an immediate economic proposition. It would not be, not until those men were trained, but when the men were trained then it would become an economical proposition. To-day we are
paying away as unemployment benefit and poor relief millions upon millions of money withdrawn from the normal channels of trade and industry; and so long as we keep this country under-cultivated we shall pay more than we need pay for armaments in order to protect our trade routes. All these things are part of the cost of cheap food.
If we are going to talk about economy, let us look at the question of economy from a national point of view. There is no economy in allowing young men to grow up without any idea of work, without any kind of training, and without the moral discipline which work in normal avenues of employment give them. That is not economy to the nation, and that economy ought to be considered in pounds, shillings and pence, in the same way as the actual grants of the Ministry are considered. I urge the House to consider the necessity for taking the lead nationally by getting local authorities to do their best to find useful work for men to be put to and to be trained for. The Government ought not to neglect the thing because particular schemes which they favour are not put forward by the local authorities. We shall have to handle this question, sooner or later, irrespective of meticulous questions of economy or economic law. Sooner or later we must settle the problem of unemployment, or it will settle this country. I believe that the one thing which the nation has got to do is to colonise the country. You are prepared at the present time to send your best agricultural material to Canada, and pay in order to make them go out of the country. We do not want that sort of thing. We want those trained and efficient men kept in this country, and there is plenty of land for them here.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I think I have been very patient with the hon. Member, but he is now clearly out of order in dealing with a general question of that kind. This is merely a grant to local authorities.

Mr. MONTAGUE: It did seem to me that the question of efficient plans on the part of the local authorities might be linked up with the larger national principle, so that the general question of the development of this nation and the use of all this labour material available for national development would be able to relieve the burden of the community.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to add a few words to the appeal which has been made on behalf of a district which is heavily burdened by this problem of unemployment. I have already availed myself of an opportunity of speaking on behalf of some areas in South Wales, and I think it is appropriate that this case should be put before hon. Members once more. I think most hon. Members know that of all parts of the country no part has been more heavily hit by the incidence of unemployment than the southern portion of the Principality. During recent years the only provision that the local authorities have made has been by way of providing some form of public works. Personally, I rejoice that we have been able to get some share of the money available for this purpose, but I want this afternoon to say how very much I deplore the probable effect of the recent circulars issued by the Minister of Labour in regard to this matter. There are areas in South Wales which have been hit in a very peculiar way by reason of this problem of unemployment. A large number of pits in South Wales have been closed for a long time, and, as a consequence, there has been a reduction of the rateable value of those areas, and the local authorities find it ever so much harder to provide their proportion in order to secure a grant from the Ministry of Labour.
I want to refer to an incident which happened only within the last fortnight. The City of Cardiff, during the last fortnight, has attempted to float a loan for municipal purposes. It was not subscribed to any considerable extent, and the underwriters were left with a tremendous burden on their hands. The Water Board also tried to float a similar loan for the erection of a great reservoir, and only 9 per cent. of the whole capital was subscribed within the time for which it was advertised. What is the reason for this curious result? The real reason is that the burdens of the local authorities and of local government have become so heavy that the local rates have mounted almost sky high. In my own area the local rate reaches the enormous figure of 28s. 2d. in the £, a figure which has seldom been reached in the constituencies of any other hon. Member of this House.
When these authorities advertise their requirements by way of loans, lenders
will not look at the proposition at all, and the consequence is that they cannot embark upon public works of real public utility. That is why we are urging upon the Government the very special difficulties of these very heavily-rated areas. I assure the Committee that they are in this difficulty not on account of bad government or because we have worse government in South Wales than elsewhere but, rather, because the problem of unemployment has been so intense that they are unable with their local resources to meet the problems with which they are confronted. Therefore, I urge that these areas ought to be rescued from dependence upon mere palliative provision such as is indicated by these grants. It is really not a big enough or a broad-minded enough way of dealing with this problem by merely tinkering with it, and making small grants of this description from the Treasury.
I should like to refer to another subject which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and it is a question as to whether, in the appointments made by the Welsh Board of Health, Welsh-speaking officers are being provided in connection with the administration of these grants. Many of us representing Welsh areas know full well that there are innumerable Welsh people who can only speak their own language, and they do not know what the meaning is of these various circulars. They are in this position, that they cannot interpret their needs or convey their desires to any of these officers unless they have access to someone who can translate the English language into Welsh. This is a most important matter. I was brought up myself on a hearth where at least one of my parents was utterly unable to speak a word of English in my early days, and I think it is probable that there may be a large number of other people like that. I urge that this difficulty should be faced by the Minister. Only this afternoon, at a meeting of the Welsh Members upstairs, we were informed that at a meeting held to-day in Cardiff, dealing with war pensions, some of those present were only able to speak the Welsh language. I submit that this is a real grievance, and I would urge upon the Minister of Health that attention should
be paid to this matter, and we should have some reply from him in regard to the points which I have raised.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope the Committee will now consider that sufficient time has been devoted to this Supplementary Estimate, and I only want to say that the various matters which have been raised connected with unemployment will receive the attention of the Government. I quite appreciate what has been said about the condition of many areas up and down the country. I have had the privilege of hearing the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) once or twice before. I do not blame him for pressing it upon the Committee again, and no doubt he will have another opportunity when we deal with the Motion in regard to necessitous areas of repeating his speech.
I should like to answer a few of the questions which have been put to me, more particularly in connection with the Widows' Pensions Act, I have been asked a question about the appointments of staff involved by the new Act and the question of advertisements. In reply to that question, I may say that all the appointments for the outdoor staff were fully advertised and were made by a Selection Committee on which a representative of the Civil Service Commission sat. As regards the indoor staff, the whole of the extra appointments were taken from the existing civil servants recruited from other Departments, and ex-service temporary men. I have had many letters from hon. Members on this question, and I think they generally agree that the Ministry have adopted the right course in giving these appointments to ex-service temporary men whose services in other Departments had been terminated, and I hope this arrangement will be considered satisfactory by those hon. Members who have raised this question. I have also been asked a question about the payments in regard to Approved Societies and the work they are doing. I think we are very much indebted to the Approved Societies for the cordial manner in which they have responded, and they are assisting us very much. An arrangement has been made with these societies under which they furnish the certificates.
So far as Wales is concerned, a question was asked, in the first place, about the extra allowance which was set out in the Supplementary Estimate amounting to £400 for travelling in Wales, and I was asked why a similar amount was not in the Estimate for this country. I do not know whether the hon. Member who asked that question thinks that I ought to increase my Estimate by that amount, but the reason for the extra amount of £450 for Wales is that the cost of the frequent journeys which have to be made cannot be met out of savings as in this Country. I have been asked a question about the Welsh language in connection with the administration of the Widows' Pensions Act. So far as the staff in Wales is concerned, I am told that many of the officers are recruited from men who can speak the Welsh tongue. The arrangement in connection with this Act is that all the important leaflets which are issued by the Government in this connection are issued in both the English and the Welsh language. I also understand that every inspector appointed under the Act has to satisfy a condition that he must be able to speak and write the Welsh language.
I have been asked to give the latest figures in connection with the Widows' Pensions Act, and I have also been asked if I have ascertained whether the staff is sufficient or insufficient. The number of pre-Act widows' pension claims received was 180,700. The actual awards made have been 124,500, and the number of rejections, 35,730, while the number of claims still in hand is 20,470. A large number of these claims, as I know personally, have been retained by the Department in order, if possible, to get some further information concerning the cases, because we are most anxious to obtain every evidence we possibly can that will justify an award, although, of course, we have to comply with the provisions laid down in the Act of Parliament. Pre-Act claims are still coming in at the rate of 1,200 to 1,500 weekly. I think, therefore, the Committee will see that a great amount of work has been done and still is being done in connection with the administration of this scheme. My hon. Friend raised the question of women referees, and asked why no women referees had been appointed. As I stated when I introduced this Supple-
mentary Estimate, my right hon. Friend the Minister has been fortunate in obtaining the honorary services of three eminent King's Counsel, who are undertaking the work at the present time. Up to the present there has been no necessity, in their judgment, for any oral evidence in connection with the claims; they have been able to deal with them on the basis of the information given on the papers. If, however, any cases should arise in connection with which oral evidence is necessary, and if it appears that in any such cases women assessors might be of use, we should not hesitate to make some appointments.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Does that mean that, if no occasion arises for oral evidence, no women assessors will be appointed?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there would be any necessity for them. I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish a woman to be appointed merely because she was a woman, but we shall utilise the services of women assessors if we think they would assist in any particular case. I think I have now answered all the questions that have been put to me, and, while I know the reservations with which hon. Members have spoken, I should like to thank them for what they have said in connection with the administration of the Act. I know that the Department and the Approved Societies have done their best to make the scheme a success, and that the best consideration possible has been given to the applications which have been made. I hope I may now appeal to to the Committee to let me have this Estimate. I need hardly remind hon. Members that there are others to be considered, and I venture to suggest that very full consideration has now been given to this matter.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman did not give one very important piece of information for which I asked, namely, the total number of the staff employed in connection with the Widows' Pension scheme, respectively, in England and in Wales.

Sir K. WOOD: I think I can give my hon. Friend that information. I should say, in the first place, that no new Department has been set up in connection with the scheme, but that it has been fitted in with the National Insurance
Scheme. I think my hon. Friend will understand that it is not possible to state now what permanent arrangements will be required in connection with the Act; we shall have to see what develops. In addition to the National Health Insurance outdoor staff which has been engaged on this work, we have appointed 278 temporary ex-service male clerks, who, as I stated just now, are all men whose period of service in other Government Departments has terminated. So far as the permanent staff is concerned, we have appointed 75 women clerical officers and 127 writing assistants. Of the 75 women clerical officers, 26 were brought from the Post Office, and 49 were appointed as the result of an examination held last year.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman in connection with this Vote, but I want to put in a claim for my own particular locality. I quite sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in regard to the Welsh language, but I want to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to some schemes which have been brought forward from my own locality—schemes of a productive character, which will pay, and not just digging holes. They might, perhaps, mortgage the future, but that is unavoidable in the present state of unemployment. At any rate they are of a productive character. In this connection I want to draw attention to the extreme lavishness of the expenditure of the Government to-day. Take the case of Northern Ireland. I have no quarrel with Northern Ireland, either politically or personally or in any other way, but Northern Ireland is being granted several millions from the Treasury to assist in the provision of unemployment benefit. Northern Ireland, however, has been granted a Parliament of its own to collect its own revenue and manage its own business, and I think that, if any charity is to be bestowed, it ought to begin at home, where it is more wanted than in Northern Ireland. Again, we have the item in connection with Civil Service sports. I am a bit of a sportsman myself, but I ask, in all sincerity, is this the time to expend £ 200,000—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot hear the hon. Member very well, but I am quite sure he is out of Order.

Mr. SEXTON: I will endeavour to keep within the limits of your suggestion, Captain FitzRoy. My only object is to try to draw a comparison between the plea of the Parliamentary Secretary as to lack of funds and the possibilities of finance. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should get on the blind side of the Treasury, and should whisper in their starboard ear that there are other directions in which money is needed beside this unnecessary and extravagant expenditure in certain directions. I put a question to-day about the large sum that is being granted to a foreign sugar company. I wish we could have a fiftieth part of that to carry out the schemes which have been suggested in my locality. There we have a small industrial town, with a population of less than 100,000, and there are 5,000 men there out of employment. Not only is there unemployment, but there is also under-employment in the mines—it is essentially a mining district—the average employment of a miner being not more than 2½ days per week. I suggest that the heads of the various Departments should get together and approach the Treasury with a view to stopping this leakage in other directions, because, as I have already said, charity should begin at home.

Mr. CHARLETON: I desire to support the Amendment, and, in doing so, should like to refer to a statement made a little while ago by an hon. Member below the Gangway to the effect that he believed in supporting the policy of the Government in providing capital through normal channels. I have been watching lately what has happened in the case of various loans which have been floated, and I find that the money does not seem to flow there. In reading the speeches at the annual meetings of the banks, too, I find that those who spoke for the banks have been advising the investment of money abroad. It seems very hard on the municipalities, and especially the progressive municipalities, that want, on the one hand, to overcome the mistakes of the industrial revolution, and to sweep away bad housing, slum areas and so on, and who also on the other hand want to do their best for the unemployed, that they should find, if they go into the money market to get money, that they cannot get it, and that now the Government is going to cut off the supplies in that direc-
tion. It seems to me that the Conservative party in pursuing this policy are doing the very opposite of what they preach on the platforms and at meetings.
They say they want to provide work, and do not want to give something for nothing. I should like to point out that in the case of the City of Leeds, one of the divisions of which I have the honour to represent, this policy, if pursued, would mean that the already rising number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief will become very much larger still. During the last 12 months, owing somewhat to the way in which the payment of unemployment benefit has been administered, the number of persons now in receipt of Poor Law relief is about 69 per 10,000 inhabitants above what it was 12 months ago.
In Leeds we have a set of very public spirited City Fathers, and they have been engaging in a good deal of work during the last few years in order to keep the unemployed at work. There are now somewhere about 1,600 men a week engaged in relief work, and it would appear that this is to be stopped. Leeds has already budgeted for about £90,000, and this, it appears, is going to be cut off, which means a very serious state of affairs for the people there. There is much that requires to be done. Dr. Addison was in Leeds a couple of years ago, and he looked at the houses. There are 70,000 back-to-back houses, and he said 32,000 of them were an abomination. It is impossible in such a City, where we have a century-old congestion, for the municipalities to do it all unaided, and, if the Government is going to withdraw everything, I am afraid Leeds will have to remain as it is very much longer. This seems to be a case of Income Tax versus human lives. Where there is congestion, bad housing and narrow streets, the death rate is very much higher than in the better portions of the City, where the streets are wider and the houses better. It seems to me this ought to be looked at from that point of view. We ought to know whether anything has emerged from the deputation that met the Prime Minister last Friday. It was a very powerful deputation from the large cities all over the country asking for the regulations to be relaxed in order that we may still keep on with our work. I
should like to know whether that is likely to be done.

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member asks me that now, I will answer it. I do not think he was in the House when I dealt with the point. The Prime Minister said he would undertake to confer with his colleagues in the light of what had been said with a view to the sympathetic examination of schemes which had been prepared in response to the Circular issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee in March last year.

Mr. SPENCER: In my own constituency, we have not a very great deal of unemployment, but there is a considerable amount in the City in which I live, and I know of no City that is worse off at present than Nottingham. A very great deal could be done to assist the unemployed there if grants were given for the erection of at least two new bridges. The whole of the traffic going South is over the Trent bridge. That traffic might well have been diverted either to the North of South of the Trent if we had had means of constructing two more bridges. A question was put to the Minister of Transport to-day with regard to the grants that have been made out of the Road Fund for this purpose, and he said that, notwithstanding the fact that he had power, little or nothing had been done.
I am certain if the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Labour were prepared to make grants for the purpose of constructing one or two bridges, it would be of immense value to the city. Nottingham is becoming more and more congested, because on the South side of the city there is little or no approach to the building site that now remains. There is little or no use for the existing toll bridge. A new bridge between Nottingham and Beeston, nearer to Beeston probably than Nottingham, would be of immense value. That would not be unproductive labour. It would be very productive, because it would assist the building site, and in the long run it would throw Nottingham out on that particular side, so that it might use the building sites that are now available. I hope at some future time the Minister will be able to turn his attention to these possible schemes, because the City is becoming more and more cramped. They have asked for power to extend their
boundaries. We are interested in the fact that they shall not extend them on two particular roads. The time has got to come when the boundaries must be extended, and it is high time another bridge was put up to serve the traffic that comes in and out of Nottingham. These two bridges would be very valuable to those who live in the City.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The speeches we have heard in the last hour from the other side, both above and below the Gangway, have consisted of an appeal to the Ministry to grant more money for these works for the unemployed. There is no one in the House who is not in sympathy with that view, but I wish to bring this point to the Committee's notice. The reason for these complaints, regarding the inability of the various councils which have been trying to raise money not receiving from the public the response they would like, is largely because of the very high rates, or in other words, the fact that their credit is not now as good as it was probably in the old days when county or town loans immediately received a response from the public. If that be the case, it is manifest that to some extent credit of that kind is not suitable, and consequently it is not possible to get the money in the same easy way as it was in the old days. The appeal now is made to the Government to grant the money.
An hon. Member said that, in his view, it was a question between the Income Tax and human lives. An appeal is made to the Government, therefore, to grant the money. But is not the Government going to be very much in the same position if they are not extraordinarily careful as to how they advance that money? In the end it may come back to this, that, if the Government do not take the very greatest care in dealing only, where it is possible to do so, with productive schemes—schemes which within a reasonable time would bring a return to the neighbourhood, and, therefore, to the country—they themselves will be faced with the fact that they cannot raise money on the same terms as before. That, in effect, will mean that the whole credit of the country will be lower, and they will have to pay larger sums for even greater loans required for national purposes. If that be borne in mind, and if it be realised, as I am sure it is, that the only real remedy in the end for un-
employment is an improvement in trade, and that an increase of Income Tax or national charges of any kind makes the burden upon trade still heavier, and again makes the Government a larger partner in the profits of industry, while paying no share of the losses, it will readily be seen that it is not possible for the Government to go beyond a certain distance in starting schemes, and that the movement they make to assist all these grants must be conducted in the most prudent way, with very great regard to the necessities of the case, and, above all, to the fact that such schemes are remunerative within a reasonable number of years.

Mr. BATEY: I want to joint in this Debate to voice the discontent of two large urban district councils in my division. I have received letters from each of them. Both are protesting against the new policy of the Government. The clerk to one of the councils forwards a copy of a resolution passed by the council. It reads thus:
That this council puts on record its profound regret at the decision of the Government, as set out in the Circular Letter, dated l5th December, 1925, issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee, stating that future grants will only be made to local authorities in cases where unemployment is exceptional, for work, which anticipate requirements by at least five years.
That in the opinion of this council the effect of any change of policy such as is foreshadowed by the Circular will be to increase the burdens cast upon local authorities, and is therefore strongly to be deprecated. That the Government be asked to continue making grants towards the relief of unemployment upon the lines previously worked on.
The Brandon Urban District Council sent a deputation to the Ministry of Health last August. They were asking permission to construct a new road into Brandon. They received no satisfaction. In December, I myself wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, who replied that, owing to the conditions of the conditions of the collieries in that district he could not grant permission to the district council to make the road. There is undoubtedly a road into the village, but there could not be a worse road into a mining village. At present, it is almost impossible to get into it.
7.0 P.M.
There are four collieries in the district, and three of them were idle. Within a
week or two of receiving the Parliamentary Secretary's reply another of these collieries started work, and since then part of another has started. Yet the urban district council is prevented from making the new road. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us he is going to inquire into every case that has been mentioned. I want him to add this case to his list. We believe this is the best time to make this road. We may not be so hardly hit as other districts in Durham, but we have large numbers of men who are either on unemployment benefit or on parish relief. The council was willing to make arrangements with the board of guardians to take the men who were receiving parish relief to construct this new road. It would be better to have them employed making the road than existing on parish relief. Besides, if the hon. Gentleman is going to wait until all the collieries start, he will not then find the labour so readily as he will find it now. With those men unemployed, it is possible to get them on to making this new road which is so essential for that mining village, and it would be fetter to do it before the collieries start work. I want to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to-night to add this case to his list and see whether permission cannot be given to this urban district council to construct this new road.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to say, first, that I hope this Debate will not end in the usual manner of doing nothing and doing it very thoroughly. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side have told us that they are going to consider, and probably something may be done which should be done. This is about the sort of ending of the Debates that we had during the last three or four years. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) told us terrible things were going to happen if we go on spending money in this way, but he forgot to tell the Committee the terrible things that are happening at the present moment. I should like to try to bring the Committee back to realities. You have been discussing a question affecting the lives of a million and a quarter of men and their dependants. We are discussing whether the Government are doing right in giving grants to local authorities for public improvements.
The Debate has turned altogether on the question of whether the issue of a circular, informing local authorities that in future the grants will be restricted, was right or not. I am not one of those who think the piling up of debt in a local authority is a good way of dealing with unemployment. I think very often a great deal of municipal work is carried out by unemployed labour that ought to be carried out in the ordinary way by ordinary labour under ordinary conditions. It was the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain who invented this scheme which has developed to such a very large extent. In a Debate of this kind, with the greatest respect to the Parliamentary Secretaries, if the Ministers would have shown a little more courtesy they would have been here themselves.

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour could not be here this afternoon, as he had a very important appointment at one of our training centres which he could not put off.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but it is getting a habit of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to treat the House with very contemptuous indifference on these questions. There is no one with any authority on those benches that we can appeal to this evening at all. The Minister of Labour is taking up an attitude which in the end must mean either that you drive the whole of the unemployed on to the Poor Law or that they just starve. The hon. Gentleman's Department will assist them in starving, as they are doing in various districts just now. The district that I represent in this House is being mulcted to the tune of about £50,000 for this current half-year because of the action of the Ministry of Labour. £50,000 on a district where the rates are at present 23s. in the £ is a pretty hefty burden. I have not heard a single word of hope from either of the hon. Gentlemen for my district or any other district. When the hon. Member for Kidderminster talks about unproductive expenditure, I would like to know what he means. We are obliged to spend money on the unemployed, and it is always very expensive and very doubtful if anything very much will come. There must be an end in every district to the number of streets you can
lay, or the number of electricity mains you can put down, or even, nationally, the number of roads you can build.
If it be possible within the limits of this Estimate, I want to suggest that there is at our very doors a method by which a considerable amount of money should be spent by grants to local authorities to place men on the land. I know that the Department is doing some training, I think, down in Suffolk and in another part of the country, and London itself is doing a little. It is extraordinary, if the story is true in the "Times," that men at one of those training centres are expected to plough and replough the land because there is not enough land to keep them going properly in ploughing. You talk about digging a hole and filling it up again. Is there anything more demoralising than to set men ploughing this way and then that way, just in order to keep them going? I should have thought that even in those centres we might have done better than that. I want to suggest what I suggested two years ago, that it is past time when the Department, instead of coming down here and wringing its hands because of the expenditure that is going on just now in a more or less useless sense, should give grants to local authorities in order to develop colonisation here. I think, while it is true we could not advocate that as a national policy to be carried out by the Central Government, we could, within the limits of this Vote, argue that the Government should spend money in this way.
The one reason that impelled me to get up to-night was that I do not believe any of the men engaged in administering the Poor Law or unemployment insurance realise the extent of the compulsory demoralisation that has been going on these last few years. People in this House cheered me once when I said I would not give money to anybody who did not go to work or earn it. That is true, but when you do not offer them work you are obliged to keep them alive. That is something every one of us here stands for. We do not stand for it as a policy to be pursued year after year. You have this mass of unemployed men, and the more you put industry on an efficient basis for a time the bigger number of men you will have on your hands. I do not see in the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Health any-
body who is considering any real practical scheme for dealing with this matter. There are two ways to do it. You have either to colonise this country or develop the Colonies abroad. I have no objection to men being trained in your training centres, and, if they choose, going abroad. But there will be large numbers of them who do not want to go abroad, and, while there is any land in this country available for them, they ought to be able to colonise England first. So I want to put in this plea and perhaps it will be considered.
I am sorry the Ministers are not here, so that we could say it to their faces. I want them to consider whether the time has not arrived when they should reverse the whole policy, certainly so far as young men are concerned, in regard to these grants to local authorities, and, instead of giving grants for what are called local improvements, give grants definitely for the training of the men and the development or colonisation of our home country by those men. Unless we do that, I am certain that in a few years, whoever is in this House discussing the question, will be doing what we have been doing to-day, talking right round it and at the end nothing practical will have been done. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Nottingham (Mr. Betterton) and their chiefs may go on cutting down public assistance and driving people off the Unemployment Exchange, and cutting down all the assistance that is being given to local authorities, but the problem will remain when they have done it all, and they will have on their hands a population C3 mentally, morally and physically.
Every hon. and right hon. Member in this House knows perfectly well that at the end of the War the reason you set up the Ministry of Health, the reason you gave money for the Unemployment Insurance, was because you discovered during the War that the physique of the nation was much lower than anyone imagined it. For a certain number of years we have been trying to build it up. Now you are driving them off the Employment Exchange; you are taking away from local authorities the means of finding work, and to some extent boards of guardians are being discouraged through the Auditor and through Cir-
culars and otherwise from giving sufficient. It is time, instead of trying to put your head in the sand and not see the problem, that you looked at it fairly and squarely and dealt with it in a scientific manner by giving the men work here in our own country rather than trying to starve them and pretend that the unemployed are diminishing and so on. It is perfectly true that, speaking for myself, none of these is any remedy for unemployment. The only real remedy is a reorganisation of our society on lines which will enable us to produce food for people to eat, clothes for them to wear, and houses for them to live in, but it is out of order to pursue that question.

Mr. HARRIS: The first thing I want to do is to congratulate the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on his appearance at that box. I only hope that he will not be demoralised by his surroundings. His character is strong enough to withstand the temptation of getting the Treasury Bench manner. At any rate, he made a very good opening. I want to be clear about the position of the Central Unemployment Committee, which is the Statutory Committee responsible for the initiation of work to relieve unemployment at a time of great distress. That committee is still in existence, and I am informed that it has met. Certainly, the various local authorities are sending representatives to it. The London County Council elects three or four representatives to serve on that body, and the various local authorities of London send their representatives, but as far as I can see the Committee is failing to function. We are asked to vote a very considerable sum of money for grants in respect of unemployment. Any grant to be effective in London should not merely be administered locally. That is recognised by some amount of assistance being given to the London County Council, but the County Council is very restricted in its powers of initiating unemployment relief schemes. There is a committee in existence which reports from time to time to the main council, but during the last two or three years, owing to the fact that its powers are very limited, it has largely ceased to function.
Local authorities where the greatest unemployment is to be found are, obviously, restricted in their powers of carrying out large works. They are largely confined to road construction. If
any effective work on a large scale is to be done in London or in the provinces the authority to do it must be the Central Unemployment Committee. There are two Parliamentary Secretaries on the Front Bench opposite, both very able and competent men, who represent the two Departments jointly responsible for this work. We might have a word from them as to the position of the Central Unemployment Authority. That authority has officials, and it has an office. The authority still exists. I should like to know something about it. I do not know what its relation is to Hollesley Bay, but I believe that nominally it is still responsible for that experiment in training men for the land. If London is to make any substantial contribution to the training of men for rural occupations, whether in our own country or abroad, surely the only authority that can do it effectively is this Central Unemployment Authority.
We London Members are entitled to have some explanation as to the position of this body. I have asked questions in this House about it, but I have not had a satisfactory reply. If we want to make some substantial contribution to dealing with this problem in London we ought to revive and bring into life again this authority, which is the statutory authority for initiating relief schemes in London. It is the only authority that can administer schemes on a large scale for the whole of London. A local authority cannot have a fair chance, because its area is too small and its powers are too limited. The London County Council has not sufficiently wide powers in this matter. We ought to know what this unemployment authority is doing and in what way it is carrying out the function which Parliament entrusted it to carry out.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to what is happening in respect of widows who obtained pensions since the beginning of the year. I have already drawn the attention of the Minister to the matter at Question time. I am referring specially to cases of widows who have been in receipt of Poor Law relief and who have now come on to the widows' pensions list and whose positions have
been made infinitely worse by receiving the pension. I have a case in my own constituency which I am trying to get rectified, and, if I do not succeed, the matter will have to come to this House. It is a case symptomatic of other cases in my Division and in all Divisions. It is the case of a widow who received 24s. a week parish relief prior to the beginning of this year. She is now receiving a widow's pension of 18s. a week and the guardians have wiped her off their books. The consequence is that she is 6s. a week poorer than she was before the 4th January. In a few weeks her position will be still worse. Her boy will be leaving school on reaching the age of 14. He will reach the age of 14 about seven weeks before he will be allowed to leave school, on account of the approximate date of the term. The 5s. allowance for the first child will be wiped off, and a net loss of 3s. a week will be incurred for a further seven weeks. I am trying to get this case put right in my constituency in Newcastle.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this is not the time to bring up cases of widows' pensions. This Vote is purely for the salaries of staff. If every hon. Member in the House brought up various pensions grievances we should never get through this Vote.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point which the hon. Member wishes to raise is not simply that of pensions but the fact that the Poor Law authorities are using this Pensions Act to reduce the amounts received under the Poor Law. The point is that the staff of the Ministry of Health are not administering the Poor Law side of pensions in the way that they ought to do.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that has anything to do with this particular Vote.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely, if the staff for whom we are asked to vote this Supplementary Estimate are not administering the Act in the spirit in which it was passed in this House, the hon. Member is right to raise it in debate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Vote is for additional staff. Probably it is because the Department requires more staff.

Mr. BUCHANAN: While the Vote is for additional staff, the fact remains that the
additional staff are already at work, and it is against the treatment meted out by that staff that the hon. Member is making his complaint.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may be a reasonable point to raise on the main Estimate, but I do not think it is in order on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I thought I was in order in bringing the matter forward, but I accept your ruling, and I will not carry the matter further than to say to the Minister that this is an aspect to which he might give his attention.

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case, I will at once look into it.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I am sure that it is not the intention of the Minister, and that it is not the intention of hon. Members on this side, or of hon. Members on the opposite Benches, that the position of the widow should be made worse by the new Act.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case. I do not understand it at all. I am eager to see the particulars.

Mr. CONNOLLY: There is a further matter, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) and the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), with respect to the giving of grants from the Unemployment Grants Fund to augment relief from the parish, and for carrying out schemes of road-making, etc. I put a question to the Minister a few days after the hon. Member for Bootle had called attention to the matter, and from the answer which he gave I understood that no limit in reason was to be set down as far as carrying out these provisions were concerned. After receiving that answer I drew the attention of the Newcastle City Council to the provisions that were being made for the carrying out of these schemes by unemployment grants augmented by Poor Law relief, but after getting the town improvement committee on the way of it, I was greatly disappointed when I heard that they had received a notification that as far as the Unemployment Grants Fund generally was concerned there was to be a tightening up.
I hope the Minister will look on Newcastle as a necessitous area just as much as other areas. We are particularly hard hit. As I have said half-a-dozen times in this House, our parlous position has been brought about and perpetuated by the policy pursued in respect of reparation tonnage and other matters. We have been made a great deal worse than we otherwise might have been. In the giving of grants from the Unemployment Grants Fund, I suggest that instead of a tightening up there should be a loosening and elasticity so that the necessitous areas may be given as free a hand as possible under the provisions of the Act in the relief of unemployment.

Mr. BECKETT: I am uneasy about the grant of a further £100,000 because, like most hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate, I feel very seriously that enormous amounts of money are being granted for what is in great part almost completely non-productive labour. Although I did not agree with many of the conclusions drawn by the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Bench opposite below the Gangway, I certainly, if I understood him aright, thought that there was running through his mind, as there is running through the minds of other Members of the Committee, a feeling that not only is most of this money being spent on non-productive labour, but that members of all parties, and local authorities governed by representatives of all parties in different districts are, quite naturally and quite properly, under the circumstances, sometimes doing work not only non-productive but not even strictly necessary, in order to keep things going.
I want to ask the Committee whether they will not seriously consider how much better it would be if, instead of voting millions upon millions as we have done since the Armistice in unemployment grants, outdoor relief and in unemployment allowance for men out of work, we had found productive employment. The figures I have obtained from various Ministers as to the millions of pounds that have been poured into my constituency in these ways without doing any practical productive good in regard to the people of that constituency or the country generally, are simply staggering. In my constituency, which is one of the most necessitous areas in the country,
men have been unemployed for two, three and more years and they cannot find work because there is no work to do. We have been badly hit, as the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Connolly) said, by the policy in respect to reparations, etc., and owing to the fact that the rates of exchange enable engineering labour to be done much cheaper in other countries, men are out of work through no fault of their own, and the industries in which they should be normally engaged have no prospect, as far as I can see or as far as the experts whom I have consulted can see, of getting on their feet again in any reasonable period.
Millions of pounds have been poured into Gateshead and Newcastle and other Tyneside towns. If the Government had said to the local authorities, "We will not confine you merely to doing unproductive labour on which no one can make a profit, but we will allow you to carry on your glass works, provided that no individuals benefit from the undertaking, and we will allow you to go ahead with minor industries and give you grants for the purpose," then I submit, and I do it in no partisan spirit, that the cut glass industry and other minor industries would have been put on their feet and the community would have benefited. I have consulted trade union leaders and employers, and I have had the pleasure of going into the whole matter with the President of the Board of Trade, and, so far as I can see, there is no prospect for the glass industry in this country while glass goods are sold at present prices. If, instead of keeping us fiddling about with non-productive jobs, which do

not add to the wealth of the country, the Government had said to us, "You can buy that glass works, and put your unemployed glass workers into it, and you can make glass and have a subsidy to do it," the industry in Gateshead could have been re-established. That would have been better than pouring out £100,000 here and £500,000 somewhere else on unproductive work. We would then have had the satisfaction of knowing that, in return for the money spent, "we had not only relieved destitution, but had maintained an industry which would be of considerable service to the community.

I ask right hon. and hon. Members to put aside prejudice as to private enterprise and competition and publicly-controlled enterprise. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) talked of a rate of 23s. in the £. Our people at Gateshead are completely impoverished. It is not an occasion when we can afford to face the problem with a prejudiced mind, and to say that things can be done only in a certain way. The position is desperate. It calls for new methods and impartial minds. I wish the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider whether this money could not be used to enable our municipalities to manufacture the things that our people need, and to maintain in the forefront of the world's markets, some of the industries which are gradually being strangled.

Sir K. WOOD: rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 127.

Division No. 43.]
AYES.
[7.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brass, Captain W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C R. I.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brown, Col. D. C (N'th'ld., Hexham)
Cope, Major William


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Couper, J. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain M.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Butt, Sir Alfred
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Blundell, F. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dalkeith, Earl of


Boothby, R. J. G.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remer, J. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Remnant, Sir James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ropner, Major L.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jacob, A. E.
Salmon, Major I.


Dixey, A. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Duckworth, John
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, G- W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elveden, Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sanderson, Sir Frank


England, Colonel A.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Savery, S. S.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.,)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglass
Shaw, Capt. W.W.(Wilts, Westb'y)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, E. W


Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fielden, E. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Skelton, A. N.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Forrest, W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Loder, J. de V.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Storry-Deans, R.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gower, Sir Robert
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Grace, John
Macquisten, F. A.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gretton, Colonel John
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grotrian, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Guinness, Rt. Hon, Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meller, R. J.
Waddington, R.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Merriman, F. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hemmersley, S. S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harland, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Oakley, T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hills, Major John Waller
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Withers, John James


Hilton, Cecil
Penny, Frederick George
Wolmer, Viscount


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pitcher, G.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Preston, William
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ramsden, E.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Briant, Frank
Connolly, M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Cove, W. G.


Amnion, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Hugh


Baker, Walter
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barnes, A.
Clowes, S.
Dennison, R.


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Batey, Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Fenby, T. D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Compton, Joseph
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.




George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lee, F.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Gibbins, Joseph
Livingstone, A. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Gillett, George M.
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Gosling, Harry
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenall, T.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacLaren, Andrew
Taylor, R. A.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Groves, T.
Maxton, James
Thurtle, E.


Grundy, T. W.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Hardie, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Warne, G. H.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Owen, Major G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, J. C.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Westwood, J.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scurr, John
Whiteley, W.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kelly, W. T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Windsor, Walter


Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wright, W.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)



Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Lawson, John James
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 271.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[7.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, s.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. s.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
March, s.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Albery, Irving James
Forrest, W.
Macquisten, F. A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Malone, Major P.B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Manningham-Butter, Sir Mervyn


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meller, R. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Merriman, F. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir Robert
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Berry, Sir George
Greene W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gretton, Colonel John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Blundell, F. N.
Guinness Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Neville, R. J


Brass, Captain W.
Hammersley, S.S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L.(Exeter)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Oakley, T.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harrison, G. J. C
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George


Buckingham, Sir H.
Haslam Henry C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Philipson, Mabel


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.- Col. Arthur P.
Pilcher, G.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Preston, William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ramsden, E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar & Wh'by)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hills, Major John Waller
Remer, J. R.


Christie, J. A.
Hilton, Cecil
Remnant, Sir James


Clarry, Reginald George
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Sir P.W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holland, Sir Arthur
Robert, E. H. G (Flint)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cope, Major William
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shaw, Capt. W.W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Skelton, A. N.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Storry-Deans, R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Dixey, A. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Duckworth, John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Elveden, Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


England, Colonel A.
Looker, Herbert William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lougher, L.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Waddington, R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fielden, E. B.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor




Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, E. (Chest'r Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Watts, Dr. T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Wells, S R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric



White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Withers, John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wolmer, Vicount
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Womersley, W. J.



Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)



Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £182,775, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation.

Mr. HAYES: I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would like to get this Vote before a quarter past eight, but I wish to put one or two points to him briefly. This Estimate has reference to increased expenditure due to arrangements made consequent on a readjustment as to rent allowances in connection with the police services throughout the country. I wish to know if the right hon. Gentleman is taking any particular action to see that local authorities are fulfilling their part of the bargain, to which they were parties by the signature of their representatives on the Committee on Temporary Deductions from Police Pay. I understand there are defaulting authorities and while it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will argue that it is a matter for the local authorities themselves, I may remind him that his department was represented on the Lee Committee—although there is a foot-note or paragraph disclaiming direct responsibility on their part. I certainly think that local authorities which refuse to meet legitimate claims made in accordance with statutory regulations, consequent on the Report of that Committee should be brought to book in some way or another.
8.0 P.M.
Another point is that in the Metropolitan Police area there is a growing tendency to economise on the rent allowances by refusing to meet those charges in respect of officers who, on transfer, fail to find suitable accommodation. Action is generally taken under a standing order made by the Commissioner of Police which has the nominal approval of the Home Secretary. It ought to be remembered that when men are transferred, they expect to be able to find accommodation equal to that which they are leaving. In some cases where police quarters are available the Commissioner has asked men—such as the men transferred from the Royal Arsenal to the "K" Division—to occupy police quarters. The men found the quarters were less than the accommodation to which they were accustomed and they were deprived of the rent allowances and in addition had to meet their own travelling expenses, simply because they would not go into quarters regarded by the Commissioner as quite suitable for them. Subsequently, without the quarters being vacant for any period whatsoever, a suitable man was found. Had that man been asked to take the quarters in the first place, those men who had refused them would not have lost their rent-aid or have been suffering the severe penalty of something like £60 or £70 a year consequent on not receiving rent-aid and having to bear the expense of approximately 2s. a day in travelling expenses. I want the right hon. Gentleman to look into these matters, which are causing a good deal of concern. The economy effected by such a process is hardly worth the trouble and discontent which arises and as these cases are almost 12 months old I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider them.
There is another matter which is not specially accounted for in the Estimates, but is referred to in a general way as being consequent on the increase of expenditure that had not hitherto been calculated on. I shall be glad to know,
and I have had some correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter, whether included in this Estimate is the small amount of 4s. 6d. that was contributed by two C.I.D. officers when they obtained admission to a meeting held by police and prison strikers in the western district in London. If so, such a contribution of 4s. 6d.—for we must remember on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission that they were there under a misapprehension and left as soon as they discovered they were under a misapprehension—should not be chargeable on public funds. Having put these few points, I will leave it at that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Move a reduction.

Mr. HAYES: I do not propose to move a reduction, because we want all the money that is in this Estimate, but I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to deal with those points. If he cannot go fully into them, will he give a promise that he will look into the various questions affecting the rent-aid throughout the country and the question of non-fulfilment by local authorities?

Sir JAMES REMNANT: I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that in the short time at our disposal we ought not to take it up by making unnecessary speeches. I agree with all he said and I am only going to make one appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, that is, will he give us some statement that, as far as he can see for some time to come, the pay of these men has really been stabilised at last? There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of unrest in the force owing to these perpetual and everlasting attempts to try to get something further out of the men on the ground that they are overpaid. There is no party question which arises in connection with the police, and nobody will try to make party capital out of it. Therefore we can all join in this Vote, which, after all, is getting something more from the Government. As I know the right hon. Gentleman is one who has great sympathy with the force, I ask if he can give some definite statement that, as far as he sees in the near future, there is no question of further reduction.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I appreciate very much the way in which the two hon. Gentlemen have dealt with these matters. I will answer exactly the questions they have asked me. As far as the local authorities are concerned who are not carrying out in the full letter and spirit the Lee Award, I will do anything that is in my power to get it fully carried out in all parts of the country. With regard to the men's quarters, if the hon. Member for the Edge Hill Division (Mr. Hayes) will send me details of that, I will go into it. As he puts it to me it does seem a very hard case, but, of course, there may be another side to it. He did not give me notice of the particular point he was going to raise, otherwise I would have answered it now, but I will go into it and communicate with him further, or perhaps he will put a question down. As regards the 4s. 6d., I do not quite know, but it really seemed to me the hon. Member had better get it back from the strike funds to which it was wrongly contributed by these two very zealous detectives who were there, and who apparently, acting on behalf of the Government, contributed 4s. 6d. to a fund which I am rather inclined to agree should not have been supported out of the public Exchequer.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), I should like to say how very much I appreciate the way in which the whole of the police force in the country and the local authorities met me in regard to the difficulties in the force when I was first appointed Home Secretary. I ought now to say a word as to the object of the Vote and what it really is. When I became Home Secretary, owing to the action of the economy started by the Geddes Committee in 1922, there was very serious unrest throughout the police force in the country. The Geddes Committee had directly ensured that a deduction of 2½ per cent. should be made from the pay of the police, from motives of economy, and, in addition to that, a deduction from the rent allowance of 3s. 6d. in the metropolis and 2s. 6d. outside. These were, of course, considerable sums in the aggregate, and were of benefit to the National Exchequer. The police had grumbled very seriously in
regard to these two deductions. They were grumbling in 1923–24, and when I came into office in 1925 I rather quickly came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that there should be an open sore of this nature in the force.
I had several conferences with the Police Council. We could not come to any terms and we had a round-table conference of a larger character. That failed, and I announced that I should appoint a Special Committee, with an independent chairman, and with representatives of the local authorities and of the different grades of police, because I was determined, as I told them, that they must come to terms in a friendly way, as between the local authorities and the police. Lord Lee of Fareham, who is well known in this House, very kindly took the Chair of that Committee, and I am delighted to say all sections worked with the desire to come to a reasonable conclusion in order to get rid of those difficulties. The conclusion that was arrived at was, that the 2½ per cent. deduction from the men's pay should be continued permanently as an allowance in aid of pensions, but that the rent cut should be got rid of altogether. Therefore, the 2½ per cent. is now made permanent, or, at least, it will be in a Bill which I am bringing in to make it permanent, because I have power under the existing law to make these cuts from time to time, by Regulations, for either a year or any less period.

Sir J. REMNANT: Making it 5 per cent.?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, making it 5 per cent. It was very unsatisfactory, and I thought it ought to be stabilised by a Bill which will be brought in during the next week or so.

Mr. HAYES: May I ask whether in those areas where the rent cuts have not been restored and the 2½ per cent. is still being deducted, will the local authorities observe the restoration of the rent aid?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know, but I think the rent aid is being paid throughout the force.

Sir J. REMNANT: Can you bring these local authorities to book?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have told my hon. Friend I will do my best and I
will go into the cases of local authorities who have not carried out the spirit and letter of the Report. In conclusion, I should like to thank all branches of the police and the local authorities for having so fairly met these difficulties. I believe the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn said something just now about there being dissatisfaction in the police. I do not think that is so.

Sir J. REMNANT: Not now.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am glad he did not mean at the present time. The police have met the Home Secretary very, very fairly indeed, and I think the local authorities have met the police force very fairly. At the same time, I do hope there will be no cause of dissatisfaction—there may be on minor points—on a large scale in the near future. I will simply add in reply to the question which has been put to me that, as I told the police myself when I met them at a large conference meeting, if they agreed to come to terms under the provisions of the Lee Report, as long as I was Home Secretary I would do my best to see that that was a final settlement of all these difficult questions, and here to-day, as far as I can see at the present time, there is no possibility looming in the near future of any further cuts in regard to the police. That being so, as this money is needed for the benefit of the police themselves, and as both hon. Members who are interested in the cause of the police force support the Vote, I hope the House will allow me to get it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I do not want to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from getting his Vote. I notice in the preliminary statement with this Vote we are told that this money is required for various police expenditure, including places of detention, and I wondered if he was anticipating a large increase in crime, because we are told here that part of this money is wanted for places of detention. Understanding that it is the intention to increase the police force as well, I wondered if really it was anticipated that there would be a large increase in crime in the immediate future. If the right hon. Gentleman is improving and increasing the number of places of detention, he ought to tell us what precisely is in his mind. That is a point on which the Committee should have some information because, all things
taken together, I do not know whether this is an anticipatory measure for the enlargement of the personnel of the police force and that he is anticipating in the very near future an increase in places of detention.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is certainly not the case, and I not only do not think there is any increase of crime likely to take place, but I think we are seeing a gradual reduction of crime. The reason, as I have said many times, that the police force has to be increased is simply the natural growth of the population of this country and the addition of miles and miles of streets which naturally have to be patrolled by the police.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In spite of the appeal of the Minister I think it would be a great pity if this Vote were allowed to go through at this particular hour. There is only a quarter of an hour before the dinner hour and we are voting £182,775, and some friends of mine are very anxious to raise points on this Vote, and it will be utterly impossible to raise them if it goes through before 8.15. There is one point that I also wish to raise. First of all, I think part of the Vote upon which the police expenses come ought to fall on the Road Fund and not on the Police Vote, but I will not enlarge on that lest I should be ruled out of order. There is one point I wish to put before 8.15 and that is in connection with some questions I addressed to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the prosecution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for breaking the traffic regulations in Parliament Square.

The CHAIRMAN: What has this got to do with rent allowances or grants in lieu thereof?

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I draw your attention to the end of the explanation under Head E, where we find these words:
Apart from this, the total approved estimated expenditure of the Police Authorities has proved slightly larger than was anticipated.
Is not that all to do with the general administration, and, if so, I submit I am in order in raising that point as being the only occasion when I can raise it. I questioned the Minister at some length on the point and he was unable
to give a satisfactory answer. What I want to find out is this, to whom are these passes issued? Are they given to Cabinet Ministers only or to Under-Secretaries?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not in Order. He may ask for an explanation on the Vote itself, but he cannot go into that point on this Supplementary Estimate.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I believe I am in order in raising the question of the administration of the police.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not in order.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Am I not in order in raising questions connected with the control of night clubs in the West End of London?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for a word of explanation—

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

WAR PENSIONS.

Mr. WALSH: I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the general administration and practice of the Ministry of Pensions, with special reference to the questions of final and erroneous awards, parents', dependants', and widows' pensions, the regulations governing the appointment and powers of area war pensions committees, advisory councils, regional officers, and special grants committees, the seven years' limit for claims in respect of pensions for death or disability due to war service, and the advisability of appointing an independent court of medical appeal for the hearing of appeals against decisions of the entitlement and assessment appeals tribunals.
In connection with this Motion, which I have the honour to submit, there is nothing of a party character, nor anything in its terms affecting any point of principle upon which Members of the House can differ. In this House and throughout the nation there is complete agreement that our primary obligation is to that great body of citizens who, in the most awful struggle known to history,
risked and sacrificed all in defence of the State. We all remember the magnitude of the peril which threatened the nation; still in our ears rings the clarion call: "Your King and Country need you"; and we still remember how magnificently the manhood of the nation responded. Great statesmen expressed the profound gratitude that filled the hearts of all, and the promise was made, "Your country will never forget you." In the past, undoubtedly, there was much truth in the quotation, perhaps somewhat hackneyed:
Our God and soldier we alike adore,
When at the brink of ruin, not before;
After deliv'rance both alike requited,
Our God forgotten, and our soldiers slighted.
I am not saying—far from it—that that is the condition at the present time. I honestly believe that never in the history of any nation has the remembrance of those valiant men sunk so deeply into the mind of the people as it has into the mind of the British people, and I believe that all parties alike are determined to fulfil that promise. I say "all parties alike" quite frankly. I remember the very beginning of the debates in this House that led up to the establishment of the Ministry of Pensions, and I remember taking some little part in its establishment myself, and I am proud to acknowledge that in those proceedings every vestige of party spirit was eliminated, and all parties strove together to establish that great Department of State which is now responsible for the care of those who risked life and limb, and of their dependants. Therefore, I do not think that that quotation, however true it may have been in the past, applies to-day, and I feel that I speak the mind of every Member of this House, and of the mass of the citizens whom we represent, in saying that such a quotation shall no longer be truthfully applied, and that to those who endured sacrifice and to their dependants not merely just but generous consideration shall be given.
Indeed, it was to carry out that governing and primary purpose that the Pensions Ministry was established. That great Department symbolises the good faith of the nation and the sacredness of the promises made to those who risked and sacrificed all for the safety of the State. This Resolution is, therefore, not directed
against the principles animating the Minister of Pensions, nor the motives governing the conduct of his Department, but rules and regulations are necessary in every State Department, and these in turn tend to become stereotyped and, if one may be excused the expression, hide bound in application. Departmental rules and regulations seldom permit of the display of human sympathy, nor can they possibly be drafted so as to cover the great variety of conditions that have followed upon the Great War. It may be asked why did the Labour Government themselves not take action when they were in office? The answer is that the Labour Minister of Pensions desired to see, during his short occupancy of that office, what could be effected by administrative action. He effected, I think it is admitted, numerous improvements, but on the 26th May, 1925, he himself said in this House:
I want to submit … that the time has now come for setting up a strong Select Committee, representative of all parties in this House, to delve into all the intricacies of this pensions administration once more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1925; col. 1256, Vol. 184.]
Perhaps I might say in passing that the Labour Prime Minister had suggested at the very beginning that probably the better course would be to appoint a Select Committee, but the Labour Minister of Pensions—and I think credit is due to him for his desire—thought it was right, first of all, to see what could be effected by administration. Later, he was satisfied that mere administrative change could not go to the root of the troubles and intricacies, as he described them, which existed consequent upon the Royal Warrant and the various regulations issuing therefrom, and had he been permitted to retain the position, there is no doubt that a Select Committee would have been appointed. Of the many intricacies of pensions' administration, and the comprehensive character of the inquiry desired, Members themselves can form an idea from the terms of the Resolution, which specially refers to final and erroneous awards, parents, dependants and widows' pensions, the appointment and powers of area committees, advisory councils, regional officers and special grants committees, the seven years' limit for claims in respect of pensions for death or disability due to war
service, and an independent court of medical appeal to hear appeals against the entitlement and assessment appeal tribunals. I do not propose—it would be a crime against the patience of the House, and against those Members who are interested in this matter—indeed, who is not?—and it would be beyond the power really of any one Member, to go fully into the subject as set out in the terms of this Motion.
On two only of these points do I desire to say a few words, and first as to the position of the permanently disabled soldier or sailor. A person, of course, may be permanently disabled when he is not totally disabled in the physical sense. I need not elaborate it. An illustration is in the mind of every Member, but those of us who have had charge of the administration of workmen's compensation on the industrial side, come constantly in touch with the kind of case where a man might be able, and is able, if work could be found for him, to do a certain amount of work, and to earn a certain wage. The loss of one eye, the loss of an arm, the loss of a leg is, of course, a permanent disability. A man with such disability is not totally disabled, but the moment he begins to offer himself in the industrial field, that disability, although only partial in the physical sense, becomes a total disability in the industrial sense. Very few employers are prepared to take into their service those who have received serious accident of the character I have described. The reply mostly is, "Well, we are very sorry, but, really, we have no room for disabled men. We want men with all their faculties and all their limbs, and although we would gladly give yon employment if it were possible, it is quite impossible." And, of course, the poor man finds practically every avenue of employment closed against him. Apply that particular illustration to the soldier, sailor or airman suffering from a permanent disability, which is not total disability. He is granted a certain percentage allowance, it may be 30, 40, 50, or anything less than 100, which is the total disability, but although he only receives a partial disability allowance from the State in whose defence the sacrifice has been made, when he offers himself in the labour market, he finds that industrially he is suffering from total disablement.
I am quite sure that that is a point worthy the attention of a Select Com-
mittee of this House, and I say that with all the greater confidence, because in the very last Workmen's Compensation Act passed in 1923, the point has been met in the industrial world, where a workman only partially disabled finds the labour market closed against him, and finds that he has become in a sense an odd lot, that there is no employer ready to avail himself of his services. He is then enabled by the Act of Parliament passed in 1923 to take his case before the County Court Judge, and if it be proved to that Judge that his failure to obtain employment is due wholly or mainly to the injury that he has sustained, then the Judge is compelled to decide that this man is to receive payment equivalent to that for total incapacity. I do not often give a Conservative Government credit; I do not often think they are entitled to it. But when I feel that they are entitled to it, I do like to give it, and I am quite sure upon that occasion they did adopt the right attitude, and they did embody in the Act of Parliament a true principle, a principle, I am quite sure, the nation would desire, and Members of this House desire, and it is a principle worthy of the consideration of any Select Commit tee this House might appoint.
The other point I would like to make again bears upon conditions very similar in industrial life to those that prevail in this particular Department. I would like to suggest the appointment of an independent medical tribunal, to take into consideration, free from all prejudice, free from all predilections, free as far as possible from all knowledge of what has gone before, the cases that have been submitted against the entitlement and assessment appeal tribunals. I have had a good many cases referred to me, of course, like every other Member. I frankly say that, in the big majority of the cases that have come to me, I have found nothing but fair treatment from the Department, whoever has been the Minister at the time; but there have been many cases—I have received a good number this week—where men complain that the doctor who was upon the assessment tribunal, and the doctor who attended upon the entitlement tribunal, was the same doctor who sat daily upon their appeal tribunal.
As to how far that statement of fact is in accordance with the Act I am not
prepared to say. I can only say that these cases have been forwarded to me, and I am sure it is desirable in the interests of all those people—every one of them and their dependants—those who have given their best service to the State—have sacrificed life and limb—in this case their limbs—where, I say, they have undergone this sacrifice, they ought, when their case has been finally settled to feel, so far as it is possible to feel, that they have had full justice, indeed generous consideration, and that nothing in the nature of a biassed tribunal has adjudicated upon their case. I do not propose to say another word in respect to the particular points embodied in the Motion. That I leave to hon. Members in all quarters of the House, who, I know, are fully informed upon the whole question.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
having regard to the prolonged consideration of all aspects of pensions administration in connection with the Great War which has been given by select and other committees of inquiry and by this House itself, it would, in the opinion of this House, be undesirable that the settled fundamental principles of war pensions administration embodied in Royal Warrant and Statute, which have been maintained by successive Parliaments and Governments in recent years, should be reopened and be again made the subject of formal inquiry by a Select Committee of this House.
I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity of moving this Amendment. In doing so I am not animated by any lack of sympathy with the ex-service men in their grievances. It so happens that, apart altogether from war service, I had nearly 20 years' service before the War, and since the War, and as a Member of this House, I served in 1921 on the Committee which finally settled the constitution of the Pensions Ministry. Since that date I have had the privilege of being one of the three or four Members of Parliament who have been invited by the Minister of Pensions to serve on his Central Advisory Committee. I think, therefore, I may say that I have been pretty closely in touch with pensions administration during these many years, and, obviously, am not out of sympathy
with ex-service men. I cannot but regret that the fortune of the ballot—if I may put it so—has thrown it to the lot of a Member on the Front Bench opposite to bring forward this Motion, and, therefore, in some measure, at all events, to throw the question of pensions administration into the vortex of party politics. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) made a most temperate speech. Still, the ex-service men in the country, remembering, quite naturally, that he was Secretary of State for War, may raise hopes that I am afraid are not justified by the circumstances.
What is the position? The whole pensions administration, as set up by successive Governments, is assailed by this Motion. That administration has been laid down by the co-operation of all parties. In 1921 the Committee presented an absolutely unanimous Report. The lines of that Report have been followed ever since that date. What is the position in regard to the occupant of the Ministry of Pensions? Obviously, it has not been a party post. As a matter of fact, out of six occupants of the Ministry of Pensions, three have been members of the party opposite, one has been a Liberal, and only two have been members of the party with whom I am associated. In other words, two have been members of this side of the House and four have been members of the opposite side. That, I think, shows that the administration of this Service has been absolutely divested of any party influence and entirely free from party. I am glad, indeed, that it should be so. What is the position now?
Members of Parliament in all parts of the House are not insensitive barometers of the state of affairs in regard to pensions grievances. I happen to represent one of three or four very large constituencies in the country—Lewisham—which includes some 10,000 or 12,000 people, most of whom are ex-service men. I think, therefore, that I have had my full quota of grievances when there have been grievances against the Pensions Ministry. It may be that partly owing to the turmoil existing at General Elections and partly by the promises—I will not say by which side of the House—held out at General Elections, but soon after a General Election Members of Parlia-
ment get more pensions grievances placed before them than at other times. That has been my experience following the General Elections of 1922, 1923 and 1924. So far as I can judge by my post, there is much more contentment with regard to pensions administration than there was two, three, or four years ago. My recollection is that in 1924 my correspondence included far more complaints than now. I fully admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Pensions Minister has always met those grievances with sympathy, and that is the case now; and we deplore the fact that the ex-Minister of Pensions (Mr. F. O. Roberts) has recently not been able to get to the House. I find that in 1924 any grievances that I had were just as sympathetically dealt with as they have been since; but my point is that the grievances now are far less than they were in 1924. If there is a case now for going into the whole of this question of pensions administration, there certainly was a far stronger case in 1924.
The ex-Secretary of State for War who has just spoken said that had his colleague, the ex-Minister of Pensions, remained at the Ministry he would have undoubtedly have set up a Select Committee. Might I point out that if, after investigations he, at the end of six months of his period of nine months in office, had come to the House and had demanded a Select Committee I have no doubt whatever that with his knowledge of the matter he would have got the leave of the House to set up a Select Committee. He did not do so. He purposely refrained. It so happens that I have the views of the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Pensions, given soon after he left office. In an article on the 10th January, 1925, these are the exact words he wrote:
Of the vast number of claims I believe it is correct to say that some 85 per cent. are all met by the existing laws or regulations. The major difficulties seem to arise with the remaining cases.
As I understand this Motion then, this Committee will delve not only into the 15 per cent. but practically the 85 per cent. You are going to upset the whole of the pensions administration, although the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Pensions admits that 85 per cent. are well met by the existing laws or regulations. He wrote this article within
a few months of being Pensions Minister, and obviously from his own knowledge. I cannot help feeling, that with his special knowledge, if these were his views, that it is a little bit unhappy that this matter should be drawn into the arena of party politics by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
A further objection to the Motion, as I see it, is that it will raise false hopes in thousands and tens of thousands, and it might almost be in hundreds of thousands, of those whose claims have been fully investigated by the Ministry and by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. It seems to me to be very unfair indeed, at a time when, so far as I know, there is a very small amount of discontent to raise hopes which are bound to prove false among tens of thousands, not only of ex-service men, but of their dependants. What the country wants is not a Select Committee of Inquiry. We have had committees galore in the past in regard to pensions' administration, and what we want now is security and stability. I should welcome most sincerely a decision to stabilise the present rates for a further period of three years and, it might well be, for another period after that.
I think that would be the way to bring contentment to ex-service men; we ought not to go raking-up cases after a good many years, knowing that in many instances the cases, as put before Members of Parliament, do not embody the whole of the facts. I have often, both during the period of the present administration and while the Socialist Government was in office, sent to the Ministry the particulars of a case with a note saying, "This really does seem a case where the Ministry of Pensions ought to give way—on the facts as they have been put before me." But time after time it has come to my knowledge that only about one-third of the facts have been put before me, and two-thirds have been, I will not say deliberately, suppressed. I would add to that that the cases sent to Members of Parliament are often the worst and most difficult to deal with.
I have referred to the objection to dragging this question into the vortex of party politics, and I would like to quote the experience of America as showing what can happen when it is in the sphere of party politics. In 1912, a hundred years after the war between
America and this country in 1812, there were still 238 widows drawing pensions in respect of services rendered by their husbands in the American war one hundred years before. It has been brought forward, certainly in one case, by hon. Members opposite that widows when they marry ought still to have pensions in respect of their late husbands' services. As I have said, 238 widows were drawing such pensions 100 years after their husbands' services in 1812. An even stronger example of what happens when these things are brought into the vortex of party politics was furnished still more recently in America. The civil war in America was fought in the middle 'sixties of last century. One would think, therefore, that the maximum amount to be spent on pensions would have been reached in the late 'sixties or the early 'seventies—within a few years of the conclusion of the war. For reasons, I believe, of a political nature this became a question of party politics in the United States, and the maximum was reached not soon after the civil war but 50 years after. In 1913, 50 years after the American civil war, seven times as much was being spent on pensions as immediately after the war, and there were six times as many dependants. Is not that rather an example of what would happen if we allow lax administration and allow this to become—I say it in no offensive sense—a question of votes?
I have one or two humble suggestions to make to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. I would like, if possible, to see the number of medical boards reduced, and I would also like steps to be taken to avoid the periodical review of pensions to the parents of deceased soldiers. I know by experience how the mere fact that the pension is to be reviewed causes a good deal of anxiety to the pensioner; and I also know by experience that now, seven or eight years after the War, there must be many cases where a man's health is practically stabilised, and it ought not to be necessary to bring him before a medical board at intervals of three or six months. Let him come before the board once a year, or once in two years, or at even longer intervals. We are all of us out to see justice done to the ex-service man, and in the ways I have
suggested the Ministry could do a great deal for them. Speaking from a fairly long experience, I am convinced that the Ministry of Pensions is doing all it can to meet in a generous spirit the grievances put forward. We are all agreed that these matters ought not to be dealt with in a narrow spirit, and that when there is a doubt, we should give the man or his dependant the benefit of the doubt, but I think we should do very much better by continuing on the present lines, and I have, therefore, very much pleasure in moving the Amendment.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
May I start with a few words which I think will meet with general agreement, for I may have some less pleasant words to say to all sides of the House later? There are two Parliamentary Private Secretaries whom we worry a great deal with pensions' questions; we pester them with our cases. They always do their best for us, and I would like to say to both of them, "Thank you very much!" No one hates to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) more than I do, but there were one or two things in his speech with which I must confess I cannot find myself in agreement. It appeared to me that when the right hon. Gentleman was talking of the way in which compensation was given under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of accidents, and so on, he was not dealing with the Motion on the Paper, but was dealing with the whole basis on which pensions are given. We grant pensions now not because a man loses his job, but we compare him with a healthy man and give him a pension according to that standard If his wound or disease has rendered him 20 or 30 per cent. below a definite standard, then he gets a pension.
If we are to follow on the lines along which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, we are going to open every single pension case that is in existence, starting right from the bottom, and that will mean endless confusion for ex-service men. There was a point, also, in his references to independent medical boards on which I wish to say something. I do not want to misrepresent him in any way, but I did understand him to say that he wished they could start free from all knowledge of the case in advance. Whenever I go to a doctor he takes very careful notes
to trace my past history and the history of the case. How can a medical board which has no previous knowledge of a case really give a decision in a difficult case?

Mr. WALSH: I never suggested that they ought not to be supplied with the man's previous medical history. What I did say was that they ought to be as far as possible free from any predilection. They ought not to know that Dr. So-and-So has already been on the case and has decided so-and-so—that kind of information ought not to be given. They ought to be as free as possible from predilection; but they might very well be supplied with the previous medical history of the case.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Then I must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. In my experience no pressure of any sort, and no knowledge of any particular doctor is issued to these doctors. That is almost entirely the way in which these cases are dealt with to-day. Let me just say a word or two with regard to the whole question. I noted with great pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion said that this was not a party matter, and he carefully explained that the question of appointing a Select Committee had been supported from 1922 onward and was not carried out in 1924, and is still being supported to-day. I suppose there are reasons outside party consideration for that. When I opened my "Daily Herald" this morning, I saw there a cartoon dealing with the year 1914 and representing an unfortunate soldier rushing into the recruiting office, and in 1926 it represents another poor crippled man beating at the door of the pensions office where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is represented as saying, "Nothing doing." This is meant to convey that the Labour party are going to give this man his pension, and the Tory party are going to refuse it.
The omnibus Resolution we are now considering embraces almost every subject you can think of in regard to war pensions administration, and it includes every person who has a grievance of any kind. I do not complain, but I do not think it is quite honest party tactics, and it is simply being done in the hope of embarrassing the Government. I do not complain about that, but I think there will be another result of this policy.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince knows quite well that many of those sitting on this side of the House signed the petition initiated by the British Legion, and the Labour party are hoping to get them into the Lobby in favour of this Motion. The only result of that kind of thing will be in the future that no Member of this side will sign petitions initiated by the British Legion. The British Legion has the very important function to perform of being a watchdog, and it is its duty to bark, and when it only does that I have no objection. On the other hand, when it adopts a dog-in-the-manger attitude and tries to get hon. Members to pledge themselves to place the Ministry of Pensions in a difficulty, they are simply playing the game of the dog-in-the-manger, and I shall not support them.
9.0 P.M.
A number of circulars have been sent out by the British Legion, and I will mention one case. It is the case of the widow of a man who belonged to the Northumberland Hussars, which I happen to command, and therefore I looked into that case with some interest, because I wanted to see if it really was a hard case. I found the facts were very carefully and cleverly put. The widow lost her husband, and it was asserted that he got no pension, although it was said that the man contracted a disease in the Army which was the cause of his death. They never stated that the man had this disease before he joined the Army, and omitted to state that it was not caused through service in the Army, and consequently a very small pension was given. When the British Legion put cases before hon. Members, the facts ought to be accurately stated. This is only one case of which I happen to know, and I should not wonder if some of the other cases are not even worse than this one which I have quoted. There are two other points to which I should like to refer. In the Motion reference is made to the seven years' limit for claims in respect of pensions for death or disability due to war service and to final awards. Both those questions were thrashed out before the Departmental Committee which sat in 1921. I admit that they are both very difficult questions, but let us look at the facts.
The British Government give the seven years' limit for claims established on the highest medical advice. As far as the
widows are concerned, the conditions are very considerably modified to ensure that every reasonable case will get a fair chance. The seven years' limit is a long way more than our Colonies or any other nation has adopted which has a pension system at all. I should like to remind the House that in 1921, when the Departmental Committee thrashed out this matter, the Labour party issued an official document based upon the Compensation Act, and in that document they placed the limit not at seven years but at six months, which they considered was a full and ample limit for cases of this sort.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Will the hon. and gallant Member state if the case he has quoted was passed as an Al man, and would he not be entitled to a pension just the same as a man who met wit an accident and his widow received compensation. What is the difference?

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I find the hon. and gallant Member's question very difficult to follow.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: I want to know what is the difference between the two cases. One is the case of an Al man suffering from some disease and is taken into the Army and dies; the other is the case of an A1 man suffering from some disease, and he comes under the Compensation Act if he is killed in an accident and his widow receives compensation.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I do not know whether the case I refer to is the case of an A1 man or not, but he was suffering from that disease when he joined the Army. The fact remains that this reference was issued with no suggestion that any disease was suffered by this man before he joined the Army, and the supposition was left that the disease was caused through his service in the Army, and therefore the Pensions Ministry ought to pay his pension, and now the hon. and gallant Member opposite rides off on another point which raises quite another issue altogether.
Let me go back to the next point—I have already got two fences beyond it—to which I desire to refer, namely, the question of final awards.
I think we have often taken a very misguided and wrong view with regard to final awards. The matter was thrashed out very carefully in 1921, but many people now think that when a man whose disability is, say, under 20 per cent., gets a lump sum down, the whole matter is finished, and the Ministry of Pensions has no further interest in it. Nothing could be further from the truth. So long as that man has been a pensioner, he receives for the rest of his life free doctoring for his disability, free treatment, and, if necessary, treatment allowances as well. For the whole of his life, therefore, he gets an advantage from the Ministry of Pensions.
That leads up to another point, because, naturally, when you are closing down cases, hard cases must arise, and the Ministry of Pensions, as far as I have followed its operations, has very wisely brought in a system of correction of errors. Any man who gets worse is entitled to medical attention. He goes to the doctor, he goes into hospital, and the Ministry of Pensions is at once able to look into his case. If it is found that he is getting worse, he is treated, and if it is found that any real mistake has been made—and I do not think there are so many as people think—they are able by that means to correct the error and adjust the subsequent pension to the state of health he has then reached. There is quite simple machinery by which, when final awards have been proved to have been made erroneously, the Ministry of Pensions is able more or less automatically to correct those mistakes and put them right.
I have said all I want to say except this, that, as far as a Select Committee is concerned, we must remember what wide effects it would have on ex-service men generally throughout the country. Not only would it raise questions of principle, but if, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the whole basis on which pensions are to be granted is to be raised, there is no end to the time that a Select Committee might be sitting, and, of course, there is no end to the number of cases that would be held up, and the inconvenience that would be caused to men who are waiting to get their settled pensions. Since 1917 final awards, that is to say, pensions under 20 per cent., have been paid, and we should have to go right back to 1917 and
revise every single case if we really wanted to make any change to-day in the system under which final awards under 20 per cent. are issued. Stabilised pensions are what these men want more than anything else. They want certainty more than anything else, so that, whether their pension be big or little, they may be sure of it. There are over 300,000 of these cases, every one of which would have to be put back into the melting pot, and uncertainty would arise where certainty is to-day.
I venture to suggest that, when all these facts are put on the one side, against the really small number of grievances that there are to-day, it is very much to be doubted, looking at the matter impartially, whether the appointment of a Select Committee is worth all this disturbance. Of course, I admit that possibly I am biased. I spent three very happy years at the Ministry of Pensions, and I know all who worked there, but, as an ex-service man myself, and in the light of the experience I have gained, I think, in the interest of my fellow ex-service men, that nothing could be more damaging at the moment to their pensions and to the general administration of pensions than the appointment of a Select Committee, and I hope that all on this side of the House will resist the demand which is now being made.

Major COHEN: In taking part in this very unreal Debate, I do not intend to go into any of the technicalities of the administration of pensions. My views I think are so well known in this House—and I aired them as recently as ten days ago, when I urged upon the Government the appointment of a Select Committee—that I do not think it is necessary again to give all the technical reasons and instances which I then gave. I do, however, deplore very much indeed the party bias which has been given to this Debate. It is useless to say that there is no party bias, for the Resolution is moved by a prominent Member of the Opposition who is an ex-Minister, and the Amendment, which to all intents and purposes is a direct negative, is moved by an hon. and gallant Member who is now a Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister, and seconded by another hon. and gallant Member who was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Pensions. The Labour party have put down a Reso-
lution expressing the wish to inquire into practically every single branch of the Ministry of Pensions—far more than I have ever advocated in this House, and far more than I have ever wished. The Amendment tries to prove that, so far from a Select Committee being necessary, everything connected with the administration of pensions is perfect, and nothing is needed but, shall I say, a vote of thanks to the Minister of Pensions and the Parliamentary Secretary for so ably carrying on their work.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) has seen fit to make an attack upon the British Legion, and, apparently, he does so because of one instance which, at any rate to his satisfaction, has been proved to be wrong. I myself do not know of the case, and, therefore, cannot argue upon it one way or the other. The hon. Member says he is satisfied that this one case is wrong, and, therefore, he sees fit to condemn the British Legion. On the same line of argument, as the Ministry of Pensions has been proved wrong in countless cases in the appeal courts, I fail to see how the hon. and gallant Member can praise it to the extent that he does. I rather think, however, that the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham overdid things. Methinks he doth protest too much. He talks so glibly in favour of everything the Ministry of Pensions does, that I fancy he imagines himself back in the old days when he was Parliamentary Private Secretary, and when it was heresy for anyone in that position in any way whatsoever to criticise the Government of which he was a very humble servant.
Perhaps I may leave that matter, and, if I may, I would like to make my own position clear to-night, and also, in a few words, the position of the British Legion. The British Legion is at the moment the only representative body of ex-service men in this country. It may be stronger than it is thought to be by some, or it may be weaker, but at the present moment it does stand for ex-service men, and it is the only body that does so stand for them. It has always prided itself on being non-party political. I do not think anyone in this House will ever say that it has taken part in a party political issue. I cannot, of course, speak for all its members. The
members of the British Legion are men like ourselves, and they are entitled to have their own party politics. How they vote at each Election is a matter that is unknown to me, and a matter entirely for themselves, but the British Legion, as such, is absolutely non-party political, and always has been. We stand for ex-service men, and for ex-service men only. We are not a Bolshevist organisation, as certain Members on this side appear to think, nor are we a Fascist organisation, as Members on the other side of the House appear to think. We are not attached to the Conservative party. We are not attached to the Labour party. It is our duty to air the views of ex-service men and, as far as possible, on constitutional lines our members are given the justice they seek.
We had a petition to the House of Commons last year asking for a Select Committee. We have had many deputations to the Ministry of Pensions, one as recently as 10th December last, all more or less on the same issue, all asking for a Select Committee or for some concession, at any rate, to be made if a Select Committee was not granted on the question of the seven years' limit and the final award. The Government have refused to give a Select Committee. In their strength they are entitled to refuse anything, and I understand the Cabinet has definitely decided that a Select Committee is not necessary. The Cabinet and the Labour party decided the same thing in 1924, so as far as that is concerned, honours are equal. But it has not done the ex-service man any particular good. I call this Debate unreal, because it really is a party fight and one knows exactly how it will end. The Minister of Pensions later on in the evening will make a most impassioned address from that despatch box. There will be in all probability a Division. The Minister will be followed into the Lobby by all his supporters on this side of the House and the Mover of the Resolution will be followed into the other Lobby by all his supporters. As the Opposition is in a minority the Conservative majority on this side will win, the Ministry of Pensions will give itself a pat on the back and go home rejoicing. Everyone will be satisfied—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but the poor ex-service man will not be
one whit the better. I can quite see the position. Here is a Resolution moved by a prominent Member of the official Opposition. It may be difficult to concede something to it. I do not know whether it will go as far as a Division. It is possible it may be talked out. I only hope it is.
It seems to me rather a terrible thing that seven years after the War is over, when we are all satisfied that at any rate some ex-service men are not getting all they ought to get—we may disagree as to the number, but I think we are all agreed there are some who are suffering—this House of Commons, the Mother of all Parliaments, should be forced to a party division on the subject of ex-service men when one remembers that during the War these ex-service men all joined the Army under a Coalition Government. There was no Opposition. There was no party on the one side or on the other. They all joined up and they were all promised that they would be looked after. Surely we ought to carry that on in the same spirit. It seems to me sometimes that we want a little of the Locarno spirit, which is so rife in Europe, in this House of Commons itself. I would ask the Minister, if he cannot see his way to grant a Select Committee, at any rate to deal more generously and more kindly with the representative body of ex-service men—I mean the British Legion. It seems to me he might consult us a little more than he does. After all we are a large body. We have some 2,600 branches in the country. We are in touch with ex-service men as individuals quite as much, if not more than the Ministry of Pensions themselves. We have on our National Executive Council and staff experts in pensions administration.
Why does not the Minister receive us sometimes, meet us, meet the men's representatives, but above all meet with our suggestions? He meets us sometimes and is very kind to us, and very polite, but we go away with very little if anything more than we went in with. I have been asking so long for a Select Committee that, much as I deprecate this Motion being brought forward in a party spirit, so it seems to me, much as I think the powers asked for this Select Committee are infinitely too wide, and T should not like to see it set up, still I cannot see myself how, after all I have been working for, I can refuse to vote for a Select Com-
mittee, therefore very reluctantly indeed I feel I must go into the Lobby against the Government.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I do not want to intervene in the Debate, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just made a statement for which I should like very much if he would give me his authority. The statement was that the Cabinet of the late Government refused a Select Committee. My recollection—and I have been trying to reinforce it—is that I myself desired a Select Committee, but there were certain points on which the Minister desired to have a little experience before the Committee was set up, and there the matter rested. Everything the hon. and gallant Gentleman says on pensions ought to be treated with very great respect by the House, and I only intervene because I desire that no misunderstanding and no misstatement with regard to what took place should be put on record.

Major COHEN: I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. My only authority for saying what I did say is that the Select Committee was not set up.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I listened with considerable surprise to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The apparent objection to the Motion arises from the fact that American widows lived too long, and that frauds were committed in America after the Civil War. That is hardly an argument that will appeal to ex-service men. Before dealing with the general question I wish to say a word with regard to the administration of the Act in Wales. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day with regard, first of all, to the removal of the Administrative Committee from Wrexham to Liverpool. Why that removal took place has never been explained, or why, if removal was necessary, it was not removed to Chester, which is infinitely more accessible to all who reside in North Wales. It has involved all the applicants in considerable expense, and sometimes it has been necessary to take a solicitor with them to Liverpool. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it. I also wish to ask whether or not the members of the Tribunal have a knowledge of the language of the people who appear before them.
It is not a matter of sentiment. In my own professional duty I have at least 40 or 50 interviews in the course of a day and not one in 20 of those is carried on in the English language. The reason is not because of my knowledge of Welsh. It is a necessity. It is the language of the people, the language of the home and of the playground. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should seriously consider the position in which the half-educated—in the English sense of the word—Welshman finds himself, who is submitted to medical examination by a gentleman who does not understand a word of what he says, to whom he cannot explain from what he suffers, or to whom he cannot give definite answers. I am told, so far as Liverpool is concerned, that the entitlement tribunal in Liverpool is entirely satisfactory from that standpoint, but the assessment tribunal has neither a Welsh-speaking member nor official. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have that remedied. I have a letter here written within the last fortnight in which the man writes—he is a native of Anglesey:
I cannot tell you how sharp and nasty they all were, and they were all Englishmen on that Board.
It might be that the man's impression was quite wrong. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member who interrupted me that if he were examined in the French language by a medical man, I am sure his answers would be neither satisfactory to him nor to the medical gentleman who was being consulted. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these things. It is necessary on grounds of medical efficiency. If the medical man cannot converse with his patient in the s language he understands, it is perfectly J obvious that he cannot do his work as he ought to do it.
On the general question of administration, I desire to acknowledge at once the courtesy of the Minister of Pensions and his officials. On the other hand, the system needs radical change, and I venture to suggest to the House that a system cannot be changed except from the top. There is a lack of either sympathy or imagination in the administration of pensions under the present arrangement. Take the question of separation. A man died the other day who had been separated from his wife.
I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and was informed that even his children were not entitled to provision. I cannot understand why children should suffer because the father and mother have failed to live together. That is one of the things with which I think the Select Committee should deal.
Then there is the question of medical tribunals and, in particular, appeal tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman made the very good point that the appeal tribunal should not be composed of the same people who have sat on the same cases before. It is essential that those gentlemen who, though members of the medical profession, have in fact become Government officials, should not have the final determining voice with regard to these pensions. May I mention two diseases in which a good many mistakes are made—and I speak with some experience of the Workmen's Compensation Act? I refer to nervous disorder and heart disease. With regard to these I venture to say they are the two diseases of which the medical profession is at the present moment most uncertain. Anyone who has to consult even a leading practitioner in London on either of those two diseases will be informed by those high authorities in London that with nervous disorders and heart disease they are practically at sea even at the present day. These are the very cases out of which most of the complaints with regard to medical tribunals arise.
Let me give one instance. I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of a man who was suffering from neurasthenia and valvular disease of the heart. His compensation was assessed, and a final award was made that he should be compensated for 70 weeks. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that it was quite impossible for any medical man to say what was going to happen to any man suffering from valvular disease of the heart in 70 weeks. This poor man had his compensation assessed for 70 weeks in advance, and when I complained to the right hon. Gentleman the answer I got was like that referred to by the hon. Member opposite who seconded the Amendment.
I am told that calculation is made on the assumption that the man will be indisposed for a certain number of
weeks, that the disability is then assessed, and that, instead of paying a lump sum, that sum is to be paid during the weekly period of 70 weeks. That is an impossible way of dealing with this man. A man suffering from neurasthenia and valvular disease of the heart cannot be dealt with in that way and when I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation I am referred to a case, perfectly well known to those who deal with the Workmen's Compensation Act, of the assessment value of a little finger. Then the letter proceeds to say that, because the value of the loss of a little finger can be calculated in wages, then some calculation can be arrived at with regard to cases of valvular disease. If that is not the argument, I will hand over the letter to the right hon. Gentleman. In any event, all these things show the necessity for a thorough investigation into the conditions under which pensions are awarded. One hon. Member has already pointed out that we promised these men in 1914 that they would be provided for and their dependants looked after. We are not carrying out that promise. Men who failed to give notice against the final award are finding themselves thrown on the charity of members of their own family who have quite sufficient burdens of their own to bear.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I find myself very much in sympathy with the remarks of the last speaker. I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen) that the Debate from this side of the House is not conducted in any party spirit at all. We have an abundance of weapons with which to attack the Government, and the addition of another one would be merely an embarrassment. Anything that is said from these Benches is entirely in the interests of ex-service men. The two hon. and gallant Members who Moved and Seconded the Amendment seemed to be much more fortunate in their experience of pensions cases than I have been. All of us who advocate the appointment of this Select Committee and who find it necessary to criticise the work of the Pensions Ministry must do so with regret, because the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions and of his Parliamentary
Secretary is so constant. At first, especially, you believe that there is no question at all that your case is going to be most successful. When, a few days later, the cold, hard, official letter comes, saying that the case has been turned down, it shakes one's whole faith in human nature.
One of the points which has been referred to is that of administration. The last speaker put in a word for his native country of Wales. To-night I shall take the opportunity to say a word about the proposed removal of the regional headquarters from Scotland. We have been looking for that proposal ever since the widows and dependants' pensions were taken to London. Nevertheless, we must make a very strong and decided protest against it. I protest, first of all, on the merits of the case, even as presented by the right hon. Gentleman in his letter to the Scottish Advisory Committee. One of the right hon. Gentlemen's points was that since the removal of the widows and dependants' cases to London they have been dealt with more expeditiously. That is directly at variance with the experience of those in Scotland who have had to deal with pensions, and I am afraid that the Minister's information in that respect has not been accurate. We can show many cases where considerable delay has taken place, and delay that did not take place before.
All cases dealt with in London involve delay. Final-award cases in Scotland. under Circular 30, are sent to London to be decided. We have had considerable experience of delays up to as much as 17 weeks. I brought forward a case, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember, where a man was boarded in Edinburgh last May, and in January of this year the award was still not published. I think it is agreed, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that the administrative work in Scotland has been done well, expeditiously, and economically. I would like to ask the Minister of Pensions whether the equivalent cost of administration in Scotland is not considerably less than in London. A question was asked in the House last December, and the reply was that the cost of the staff in Edinburgh was 5s. 8d. per file as against 9s. 4d. in London. I would like to ask how much more it is going to cost to carry on the Scottish work in London than it costs in Scotland? The sum of £20,000 has been mentioned, but I do not
know whether or not that is correct. However, on its merits the proposal to remove the regional headquarters from Scotland is clearly not justified.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that Scotland is in quite a different position from regions in England. Scotland is even in a different position from Wales, because we can proudly claim in Scotland that we were able to withstand the attacks of the Saxons more successfully than our unfortunate brethren in Wales. In any case, whatever the reason, the administrative unit has been England and Wales together and Scotland by it-self for most services. We look after our own health, education, agriculture and other things. We are trusted with these matters and we want to know whether we cannot still be trusted to look after our own ex-soldiers, whom we know and understand. The right hon. Gentleman has the misfortune not to be a Scotsman and he does not understand why there should be any fuss. He thinks it is merely a matter of administration and that it is natural for us to put up a little stir and noise about it, through injured vanity, but that there is nothing more in it. I can assure him that there is a great deal more in it. By his action he is outraging Scottish national sentiment. Where he cannot even justify his action on the merits of the case, there is very good ground for reconsidering his decision and, at least, postponing this matter for a very indefinite time.
In regard to the main case for a Select Committee, it is no argument to say that we have had such a wonderful continuity among different Governments from year to year that it would be very unfortunate to upset it. After all, pensions is a new service and has been a changing service. There have been many introductions of new regulations and the result has been that in many cases the system is now working badly. I think a Select Committee to look into the whole matter is a common sense proposal and not one to be afraid of.
With regard to final awards, the Minister has said that it is a great convenience and satisfaction to the ex-service man to know that his case will not be taken up again and that he will not have to be re-examined. We do not object to final permanent pensions,
but we would like, even in that case, to have the option of a re-examination if the man's case becomes worse and his pension is obviously inadequate. That was the position in the original Royal Warrant. The Minister of Pensions only had power to deprive a man of his pension if it had been obtained by fraud, and the man was eligible for an increase of pension. With regard to the final awards referred to by an hon. Member opposite, where 7s. 6d. for 26 weeks or more is given, it is quite impossible for any medical man to say that a man's condition is such that he will be restored to perfect health exactly in 26 weeks. That system was devised at a time when I think—there is no question about it, though one does not like to say it—there was an attempt to get rid of the ex-service man problem altogether and to settle it once and for all and not be troubled with keeping up the whole machinery of pensions. It is very difficult in these cases to get a re-opening. It can only be done after the award is shown to be definitely erroneous. That is a very difficult thing to secure.
Respecting the seven years' limit, we have had a good many cases of late. During the six months' period in which we now are, something like 2,000,000 men will have reached the time of seven years after their discharge from the Army. I am aware that there is a Regulation now under which, even after seven years, if a man has been wounded or injured and is showing effects from the wound or injury he may get treatment and may further be assessed for pension. But that does not apply to disease. After all, it is disease that we are dealing with mostly nowadays, especially the disease of tuberculosis, where there has been very considerable difficulty in assessing and in tracing as to whether the disease was originally contracted or aggravated in the Army or not.
One thing that I feel about the whole pensions system is that it penalises the man who was plucky, the man who did not run to the field ambulance or the hospital on every occasion. A man may have worked, as many did, with heavy colds or chest complaints for months. He carried on and there was no entry in his medical sheet. He ultimately developed tuberculosis. His medical sheet was turned up, and he was told, "This was
not contracted in the War, because there is no record of your having been to hospital with pleurisy or anything else." The plucky man has been penalised all along the line.
I want to say a word about the case of the widows. Under Article 17A, no pension is given unless the death certificate shows quite definitely that the disease or injury from which the man died was directly due to war service, and even then if the award was under 40 per cent., there is no pension. If the award is over 40 per cent. it is only given at the discretion of the Minister, and that discretion is very seldom exercised in the woman's favour.
There is one other important point on which I would like to say something, because I have never heard very much prominence given to it, and that is in regard to the definition of the word "widow." In the 1919 Warrant, Article 24 says:
But widows shall not include the widow of a soldier whose marriage took place after removal from duty on account of the contraction or aggravation of wounds which caused his death.
It will be noted that the word "first" is not included there, but the word "first" was later put in before the word "removal." That has caused a tremendous amount of hair-splitting and expense and trouble, and legal and medical consultations, and ultimately, in many cases, has resulted in gross injustice to the widows of our soldiers. I have brought to the notice of the Minister the case of a doctor, a member of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who served during the whole War from the time of Gallipoli. After Gallipoli he came home, married in 1916, and afterwards served both in France and Italy, where he was severely wounded. He came back again and served at home in camp, and ultimately died from pernicious anæmia. That man's widow was refused a pension on the ground that he had contracted his disability in Gallipoli before marriage. I was able to produce a certificate from the very highest authority on that disease, stating that in his opinion, after going into the whole of the facts of the case, the disease was not contracted until 1918 during a severe attack of influenza. In spite of that, the Minister of Pensions turned the case down and said the widow was not eligible for a pension. That widow is now going out
to work, and trying to support her two children.
I have another similar case, where a man after marriage was sent to the front and wounded, and his wife has no pension. There are numerous cases of that kind. It is no use to say that everything is well, and that pensions administration is what the British public would wish to have it. This provision about widows was obviously designed, just as the similar Clause of the Widows' Contributory Pensions Bill was designed, to prevent a designing female from marrying a pensioner who was on the road to the grave, and doing so because of his pension. That was the only reason for the insertion of that Clause. Yet the Ministry have used that Clause to debar women who married bona fide and were married bona fide; they have used the Clause—even where no one could decide when the disease first started—to deprive them, and their children of the allowances which the country intended and which British public opinion would wish them to have.
I want to put in a word also for tuberculous ex-service men. They are not very satisfactorily treated in some ways. They get allowances, certainly, as long as they are in hospital, but not after they are discharged only fit for light duty, which is not available. I put in a plea for the restoration of the special diet allowance which they had some years ago. That is a very important point. There are some other things that I wanted to say, but I have already taken up more time than I intended. I earnestly press for this Select Committee. I agree that its effects may cause same trouble to the Ministry, but it will be worth while. One hon. Member has said that it would upset ex-service men. I am sure that it would satisfy ex-service men, for many of them just now are unsatisfied. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the whole country at the administration of the Pensions Service
One hon. Member has criticised the British Legion. So far as my experience goes, it would have been a bad look-out for the men and widows of Scotland had it not been for the British Legion there. Officials of the Legion go with the men to the tribunals, and I know, by contrasting
their cases with those of others where such assistance has not been given, that the help of the British Legion officials has been for the benefit of ex-service men. I agree that it is very unfortunate that this should be necessary, and one of the reasons why I wish for a Select Committee is that it should not be so necessary for officials of the British Legion, for Members of the House of Commons and others, to stand up for the ex-service man, and, by fighting, to get for them the justice which should be given as a matter of right and custom.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: I wish to support the Amendment, and for two reasons. The first reason is that this question of a Select Committee has been repeatedly considered, and repeatedly refused by successive Governments. Only a few minutes ago I would have said that it had been refused by the Labour Government, but since the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose I ought to say that it was considered by the Labour Government, but was deferred for further consideration, and as a result was not carried into effect—which comes nearly to the same thing. My second reason is that such an inquiry would entail a vast amount of labour, a vast dissipation of work. It would probably raise false hopes in the minds of those whom I might call the unlucky ones as regards pensions, and on the other hand it might raise fears in the minds of those whom I would term the overlucky ones, of whom there are many. When you talk to pensioners you find that there are many who think that they are getting more than they deserve. We do not want to interfere with them. If they have a generous pension, let them have it.
If a Select Committee were appointed and it agreed that nothing should be done, it would merely have been a vast amount of work and energy expended for nothing. If on the other hand the Select Committee chose to take the bit in its teeth, and to make a number of far-reaching recommendations, it might mean that scores and hundreds of thousands of individual cases would have to be reconsidered. During that time there would be much suspense, and as a result there would probably be a great deal of disappointment. Heaven only knows what the clerical staff of the Ministry would become. It would certainly have
to be doubled, and possibly trebled or quadrupled. Hon. Members opposite might say that that was a minor matter. I think that Members on all sides of the House will agree with the statement that we all recognise that the present Minister of Pensions is a man full of human sympathy, who does try to do what is in his power for the ex-service man, and we ought all to thank him for having introduced quite lately the stabilisation of pensions, which will be of great benefit to the ex-service man for three or four years to come.
All who have studied the question of pensions know the difficulties with which the Minister has to contend. I do not wish to use any hard words in reference to the cases which come before him, but I will say that a large number of men who are "down and out"—I am not blaming them, for I should probably be the same myself in the same circum stances—who find themselves short of money and find that no friend will lend them money, if they take influenza and become seriously ill, make application to the Ministry to see if they cannot get something out of it. Cases of that kind are constantly coming before the Minister, as well as the genuine cases. He has also a great deal of trouble, I imagine, in regard to the Treasury. The Treasury, of course, is supposed to be the watch-dog over all Departments and the Ministry of Pensions is not exempt from its oversight in these cases. Having said so much, I would impress on the Minister that whatever other economy the rank and file throughout the country may favour, they are not in favour of economies effected at the expense of the deserving cases of ex-service men.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why underline "deserving"?

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: I am sure the hon. Member will allow me to continue my speech. I think we all admit that on the whole the Ministry is very well administered. It would be idle, however, to pretend that all the Regulations and all the administrative acts of such a Ministry under any Government are perfect. As I know from personal experience, the Minister has been able to reopen cases of men who were wounded, even after the period for appeal had expired,
and he has shown considerable latitude in reference to these wound cases. I ask the Minister if he could not extend that consideration to certain cases of illness. I do not refer to cases where, in the rush of the moment, a mistake was made by the recruiting medical officer and three days afterwards the man was found to be an invalid and was discharged. I refer to cases of men who on enlistment were marked "A1," who went out to one or other of the theatres of War and served a considerable period in the trenches and were then invalided owing to illness. I hope in such cases they will not be marked merely as "aggravated by War service" and nothing more.

Mr. SEXTON: I know of half a dozen cases of that kind.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What about the Mesopotamia cases?

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: I join with hon. Members in whatever part of the House they sit in saying that where a man has been marked "A1," has served a considerable time, and has sustained disability, he should get the benefit of the doubt. Allowing for all that, I conclude by saying that I am perfectly sure a Select Committee such as is proposed would be impossible in practice, and I am going into the Lobby against the proposal.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: If the debate on this Motion has assumed a party character, that is very largely due to the party spirit infused into it by hon. Members opposite. So far as we are concerned our single purpose in introducing this Motion was to protect interests which are not now protected by the Minister of Pensions, and to lead to an impartial inquiry into the whole matter of pensions administration and practice.
That does not necessarily mean that the whole fabric of the existing administration is to be destroyed. It means that it is to be examined impartially and it may be—indeed, I expect it would be—discovered that a considerable part of the existing machinery meets its purpose. It would I think inevitably also be discovered that part of the existing machinery is defective and unsatisfactory and operates disastrously in reference to a considerable percentage of ex-service men and their dependants. Supporters of the Amendment have suggested that there is some unworthy party interest
behind this Motion. Surely they remember that as recently as last year, 250 Members of this House signed a requisition to the Ministry pleading with them to establish the very inquiry for which we ask to-night. I shall be interested to note how many of the signatories to that petition will be found in the Division Lobby against this Motion. I am assuming, as I fear I must assume at this stage, that the Minister will not concede what the Motion asks.
It has been suggested that there is an inconsistency on the part of the Labour party in bringing forward a Motion of this character, in view of what happened during 1924 in regard to pensions administration. Let me state the facts as far as the Labour party is concerned. I believe the Minister of Pensions is to adopt a method which I am sorry he adopted in former Debates of sheltering himself behind what he believes to be the shortcomings of the late Labour administration. I hope he will not pursue that policy to-night, but, even if he does, I am prepared to argue now that our record on pensions administration, and especially on this matter of the appointment of a Select Committee, will stand examination and will stand contrast with anything done by the Ministry of Pensions since the Labour party left office. The Leader of the Opposition stated tonight, accurately, the position of the Labour party on this question. I only need to state briefly what the late Pensions Minister said in this House on 26th May last in order to put this matter beyond any shadow of doubt. Speaking on the general question of administration and the special difficulties he had discovered during his period of administration, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) said:
I always made my own position clear in connection with the acceptance of the methods of the correction of errors—that no finality was to be attached to the matter so far as I was concerned. It was a tentative experiment. We could then have an idea as to what might happen in the future. A thoroughly searching investigation is now due."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1925; col. 1250, Vol. 184.]
The right hon. Gentleman applied that to the various difficulties which he encountered in the pensions' administration during 1924. He added:
There is a demand for a revision, consolidation, and simplification of the exist-
ing Regulations, and I think a Select Committee … would be able to deal with all the points which would be raised. … I feel certain that in asking for the setting up of this Select Committee we are not asking too much."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1925; col. 1258, Vol. 184.]
That is the deliberate judgment of the Labour Pensions Minister, expressed in May last year, and if any hon. Member asks to-night why that policy was not applied in the eight months of the Labour Government, I think the answer can easily be supplied. The fact of the matter is that the Labour Ministry inherited in the matter of pensions administration a very difficult and very confused situation, and during the greater part of our eight months of office, the Pensions Ministry was engaged in straightening out difficulties, and in correcting confusion and in arriving at conclusions as to how far ordinary methods of administration would remedy the difficulties that everybody then admitted existed. I need say nothing more on that matter.
I would like to state briefly what I think ought to be stated to-night, the general grounds upon which we put forward the demand embodied in this Motion. In past Debates the Minister of Pensions has sheltered himself behind the terms of Royal Warrants and legislation, especially the Act of 1921, in order to explain away the shortcomings of his Department. I hope no such attempt as that will be made to-night because, as a matter of fact, on examination all the special difficulties that emerge to-day in pensions administration will be found to arise not on the basis of the terms of the Royal Warrants, nor on the basis of legislative enactments. They arise almost entirely on the basis of Regulations for which the Pensions Minister himself is personally responsible. It must not be forgotten in regard to the matter of final awards in particular that the whole matter of the making of final awards is not a compulsory matter. It is permissive, and it is optional under the 1921 Act. The genera] principle that I should like the House to-night to apply its mind to is not what the Pensions Minister thinks of his Department and its machinery. It is perfectly natural that to-night the Minister of Pensions should seek to justify his Department. It is perfectly natural that he should try
to put up the best case possible for these servants of the Ministry who are to-day applying themselves to the administrative work of his Department. I am not quite sure that the Minister of Pensions is the person best qualified to explain his own shortcomings, and in this connection I want the House to remember he is doing to the House to-night exactly what the Ministry does to the ex-service men in the matter of pensions administration.
I should like him to enter, if he possibly can, into the spirit and the mind of the voluntary workers up and down the country who have assisted materially and usefully in the work of pensions administration up to now, and if he does that I think he will admit that from one end of the country to the other there is intense dissatisfaction and unrest, which has been expressed in resolutions and communications addressed to the Ministry of Pensions, communications the meaning of which I think no Minister could fail to understand. It is a fact to-day that so far as the general administrative method of the Ministry is concerned and the general policy of centralisation of executive authority here in London, not only in Scotland, but in every part of the country there is intense dissatisfaction and a desire to see the adoption of that policy which I think must be adopted in time if ex-service men and their dependants are to receive equitable treatment—the policy of decentralisation, of giving to local authorities, and local committees and local medical practitioners far more authority and power in the decision of assessments and entitlements than they have had up to now. That is, of course, a complete reversal of the policy which the Minister is now proceeding on.
The general feeling—and this is no exaggeration—amongst a very considerable section of ex-service men, of pensions committees, and area administrators, is that the pensions machine to-day is a soulless machine which grinds out official decisions on purely legal grounds—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and on grounds that are taken to secure the end that I am certain this House does not generally desire to reach, of achieving economy of administration at the expense of the ex-service men and their
dependants. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] That is a feeling that is very widespread. It is shared by a very large number of people who are to-day engaged in the work of pensions administration.
Take the matter—and I am simply running over in outline the main grounds upon which we put forward this Motion to-night—of final awards. What is the real fundamental reason for the establishment and the continuance of this principle of final awards? Does anyone in this House dare to assert that any medical authority, however competent, can examine a man to-day, and say that in 12 months, in two years, or three years hence the disability from which he is now suffering will have disappeared, and he will be in a normal condition?
That is what the Minister assumes to do in the matter of final awards. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Yes. It is perfectly true that the man who gets his final award can within 12 months appeal to the tribunal for a consideration of his case, but I say it is a sheer impossibility for any medical authority to say on any sound medical grounds what the condition of an ex-service man suffering either from any surgical or medical disability will be 12 months hence. The truth is that the principle of final awards is on exactly the same basis as the principle of the seven years' limit. It is part of the machine contrived in order to create as many obstacles as possible in the way of an ex-service man proving his claim and maintaining his right to a pension. It is so regarded, I do assure the House, by thousands of ex-service men [HON. MEMBERS: "Non sense!"]—who have been penalised by Regulations which this House has never had the opportunity of considering.
The system of final awards was ostensibly instituted as a means of avoiding what was regarded as needless repetition in the matter of medical examination. If it served that purpose, and that purpose alone, we should be happy on this side to support it, but I want to remind the House that there is a vital difference between the final award as that term is now understood, and the final pension that we should like to see granted to ex-service men at the moment their condition becomes such as would enable competent medical authorities to
say that the condition was largely stationary. We want to see restored the provisions of Article 5 of the Royal Warrant of 1919, establishing the principle that a pension could not be reduced, that a man could not be reboarded, but that he could ask at any time for a review of his ease if his disability got worse. That there is great want of care in the matter of pensions administration and in the deliverance of medical judgments on cases was evidenced by figures recently provided to the House.
The Minister, on 10th December last, told the House that, out of 6,239 appeals against final awards made last year, the Ministry's decision was found to be wrong in no fewer than 3,381 cases. Those figures alone, I think, prove the necessity for some inquiry into the manner in which those cases are now being disposed of. In the 10 months ending 31st October, 1926, only 1,000 cases were dealt with under the regulations governing erroneous awards. Are we going to assume that, in regard to those erroneous awards, even that limited number of corrections was made on the initiative of the Ministry itself? [An HON. MEMBER: "All of them !"] Without any intervention on behalf of the ex-service men by Members of this House? I think it would be found that in the great majority of those cases they had to be pressed on the Minister of Pensions by representatives of the ex-service men in this House, and that they would never have been heard of if they had been dealt with through the ordinary machinery of pensions administration.
I pass from the matter of final awards to a matter touched on by an hon. Member behind me, but which, I think, needs to be examined in another aspect, and that is the manner in which widows' claims have for some considerable time been and are now being treated by the Ministry. It is a fact that in the first ten months of last year, up to November last, one-third of the pensions granted to widows were given only after the widows had appealed to the tribunals, and that fact in itself, I think, constitutes a very grave scandal. Then there is another matter involving the interests of the widows of service men. I put a question to the Minister of Pensions last week relating to the number of cases in which
widows' pensions have been cancelled on the ground of alleged misconduct, and I want here to enter my strong protest against the Ministry of Pensions constituting itself a moral censor over the conduct of the widows of service men. It is a principle that is not applied, I think, in any other State Department. It is a principle that is not applied to service men themselves in the matter of their pensions, and I think it a most improper thing that the Ministry should ask the police, on the ground of what might be merely gossip, to call on a widow, to make inquiry into her alleged misconduct, and then, on the ground of a biased report which the widow herself has had no opportunity of combating, to have her pension disallowed.
The other matter of the seven years' limit has been, I think, sufficiently dealt with to-night, and the last point to which I will draw attention is the matter of tuberculous cases, as those cases are related to the matter of the benefit of the doubt which is supposed to be accorded to claimants to pensions to-day. The assumption is that when a man's medical history is deficient, if the man is not able to prove his case, the Ministry gives him the benefit of the doubt in regard to any matter relating to the origin of his disability. As a matter of fact, that is not true in practice to-day. The man does not get the benefit of the doubt, and especially is that true with regard to tuberculous cases, and other cases of a medical character. The case I have in my mind at the moment is a case which I want to quote as a typical case. I know it is perfectly easy to meet cases quoted in this House by alleging that they are exceptional, that they are not representative of the general run of cases dealt with by the Ministry.
But the case I mention is so typical of many other cases which I have met in my own constituency, that I cannot refrain from citing it here as a typical case. It is that of a miner who enlisted late in the War, and who, in 1918, in barracks was one of the victims of an influenza epidemic. There was no hospital in the country for the corps in which he belonged, and the consequence was that the whole company lay in huts during the period of their illness. The man went overseas and was never free of the disability he contracted during
that illness in barracks. There is most conclusive evidence that while he was in the trenches in France he suffered from a very serious hæmorrhage, that while lying in the trenches hp was spitting blood, and while he never actually reported sick between that date and the date of his discharge, there was conclusive evidence that all the time he was in France he was suffering from the effects of the illness which I have described. The man came home, and, as a matter of fact, was never able to do a heavy day's work. During the whole period from the date of his discharge up to 1920, when he was certified as a tuberculous case, he suffered more or less from chest trouble.
How does the Ministry of Pensions treat this case? It appeals to the arbitrary and altogether artificial restriction on the right of these claimants to pension by saying that a tuberculous case, in order to rank for pension, must have developed within 12 months of the date of discharge, and that in this case, which was only certified as a tuberculous case some 20 months after discharge, the trouble could not possibly be attributed to war service. I do not give all the details of this case, except to quote the unbiassed medical testimony in regard to this case when the man was examined. This is the view:
I am of opinion that this man is suffering from tuberculosis of the lungs, and that the disease is attributable to his service in the army during the War. The history of the case is that symptoms of tuberculosis appeared about September, 1918, and, in my opinion, that the tuberculosis of this case was attributable to the man's service is based on the following: He joined as an A.1 man, developed a cough while in the service, and in September, 1914, haemorrhage set in, and the case developed as I have described.
Evidence was procured from the man's associates. The man was serving in the trenches. I want to inform the House how the Ministry of Pensions treated that evidence when it was submitted to them. The Ministry said about the case:
The spitting of blood may result from causes other than tuberculosis of the lungs, and the fact that spitting of blood is corroborated by the man's comrades gives no clue to the origin of the blood. If the disease started in September, 1918, the physical signs of tuberculosis would have been more marked two years later.
As a matter of fact, two years later the case was marked a 100 per cent. case. In spite of that the Ministry turned the case down and the man to-day is physically unable to work, even after he has had a period of sanatorium treatment. He is not receiving anything in the way of pension for the disability from which he suffers.
Our general complaint against the Pensions Ministry to-day, apart from the general issues I have tried to describe, is that neither the House, nor the country, nor the ex-service men know what the Ministry is doing in the way of its pensions Regulations. I put a question last week to the Minister asking him to tell me if he would circulate to hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"] I will finish in a moment, but this is a signal point in our appeal for an inquiry. I asked the Minister last week if he would circulate to Members, or place in the Library, copies of the circular issued recently to area officers of the Ministry instructing them as to the procedure in cases excluded by the operation of the seven years' limit. Our appeal for information regarding this important circular, which affects the basis upon which the pensions are to be granted in this connection, and as to the contents of the circular, was turned down. Why does the Minister of Pensions fear publicity in regard to the manner in which his Department is being worked? Why should he issue secret instructions to his servants in this or in any other matter? Surely it is in the interests of the ex-service men to know exactly to what they are entitled? On these various grounds we appeal for an inquiry into the whole matter of pensions administration, and I trust we shall have a satisfactory answer from the Minister.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I hope I shall give satisfactory answers to the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) made a very moderate speech, but one could not help seeing the devastating effect which an inquiry might well prove to have if his suggestions were adopted. It might well be that, if a man's earnings have to be taken into consideration, an. unemployed man would get a higher pension, while a man who, in spite of his
disability, managed to do some work, would receive a less amount. It would mean reducing the amount of the pensions of those gallant men who, in spite of their disability, are employed. In other words—and this is a most important point—it might well be that the scheme adopted would be absolutely incapable of administration, and if it could be carried through it would undoubtedly mean that large numbers off men would lose the pensions which they are now getting.
Other points were put by one or two Members, and I desire to say that I appreciate the point in reference to the Welsh language. I am very sorry that the speeches of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) were not made at a time when the House was more full; and I would suggest with much respect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Fairfield Division (Major Cohen) that he must not take the attitude that the British Legion are an organisaion which nobody can criticise. If the British Legion have presented a case to the House in a way which omits essential facts, it would be better for the British Legion to acknowledge their mistake instead of making an attack on Members, and making references to the fact that certain Members have served in the capacity of Parliamentary Private Secretary—a very onerous position which should not disable a Member from speaking freely on matters affecting other Departments.

Major COHEN: I complimented him on having been a Member of the Government.

Major TRYON: I think when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) looks over his speech and goes into the facts he will realise what an enormous number of inaccurate statements he has made, and how much he misapprehends the position. For instance, he said that practically all the cases which were put right under the correction of errors system are put right through the intervention of Members of Parliament.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: No, I did not say that. I asked how many?

Major TRYON: No, I do not think that is so. The hon. Member tried to convey the impression to the House, in a statement from which he has now endeavoured to escape, that the majority were put right through the intervention of Members of Parliament. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming mass of corrections of error take place through the normal channel, which is the medical channel; they are corrected when the men come up for treatment.
We have heard a good deal about the British Legion petition and its two points—final awards and time limits. I think nobody reading that petition would be made aware of the fact that the final awards are modified by the system of correction of errors, though it must have been well within the knowledge of the British Legion when they worded the petition. Nor would anybody reading the petition be made aware of the fact that the Government had already announced that on the seven years' limit they are prepared to deal with exceptional cases. Whether that is a satisfactory solution or not is a matter for judgment, but certainly the facts ought to have been presented to those who. were going to sign the petition. I understand that the petition is regarded as a very large one because it was signed by 800,000 people. One Member, speaking on behalf of the British Legion, said in a moment of great enthusiasm that it was the largest petition since Magna Charta, which he evidently thought was got up by the Chartists.
As a matter of fact, 800,000 signatures to a petition got up by an organisation which professes to speak so very decisively for ex-service men, and to have so many thousands of branches, is not a very large number, because it includes the signatures of women as well as men, and of men who are not ex-service. It must be remembered that there are no fewer than 5,000,000 ex-service men in the country, and with their dependants and people who might be tempted by the various offers held out, there might be anything from 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 people who could have signed. Out of that enormous total, and after all the use of cinemas. [An HON. MEMBER: "And intimidation!"] and other means used by the British Legion only 800,000 signatures were obtained.
The problem of final awards is a very important one. We hear of complaints, I read of complaints, and I know there are such cases. Among the most frequent complaints at the present time are the complaints of men who say, We do not want to go on having these medical boards any longer. We want to get the pension settled, and settled for life. Ever since the beginning of the Ministry, and in the Warrants which were prepared by the two first Ministers of Pensions, both of whom were Members of the Labour party, cases under 20 per cent. were paid off by what is really in the nature of a lump sum. Cases of 20 per cent. and upwards get a weekly pension. The British Legion propose that the right of appeal to reopen the cases in spite of the final awards should be given an unlimited number of times in cases of disability under 20 per cent., but deny that right to cases over 20 per cent. Why a privilege of this kind should be given to the slightly disabled when it is denied to more serious cases nobody has yet explained.
If you are going to have final awards you must have finality both under and over 20 per cent., and that is what is being done under the Act of 1921 which puts the position of final awards on a statutory basis. On that one special occasion during the man's pension life there is a new tribunal, the Assessment Tribunal, to settle the case between the man and the nation as to the final compensation for his disability. The British Legion propose that the final assessment tribunal, set up for one special occasion, should be invoked over and over again for the men under 20 per cent., but not for the men over 20 per cent. It is obviously impossible for the tribunal to make a final settlement every few months.
What the campaign of the British Legion would mean is that we should get back on to a conditional basis, that all these cases might be re-opened, that many men now having settled pension would have their pensions endangered. Beyond all doubt, if the House of Commons should decide that there should be no final awards, we should have to carry out the wishes of the House, with the result that 200,000 men who are drawing pensions at the
present time, and want to get their pensions settled for life, will never get them settled at all, because they will be kept in the balance going before the medical boards, and if that happens they will owe their position to the action of the British Legion and those who support them.
We have been told that this point of view is supported from every part of the country unanimously. Anybody who has been a Member of this House for some time will know that there is such a thing as sending out Resolutions from headquarters and getting them passed all over the country. Like many other people, I have an instrument at home by which I am able to receive wireless messages and so-called music from various centres. Sometimes that music is good and sometimes it is not. I was listening one night to a tune, and I tuned my instrument to listen to various stations. I listened to Aberdeen, Birmingham and Bournemouth, and I found that from each of those centres came the same tune, but I discovered that the tune was only being played by one band, in London, and that it had been relayed from London all over the country. Sometimes I think that these stations do not always pick up what has been relayed. I promised the House that I would make inquiries into this question, and I have been all over the country for the purpose of doing so, having had the most valuable assistance from my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
We have been as far north as Inverness, as far west as Cornwall, we have been to Wales, and so on. And, when I have been down and have met the chairmen of committees, the ex-service men who have come in, by chance, and not in some organised demonstration, those working in the offices, and the voluntary workers to whom we owe so much, I have not found anything to bear out the contention of the right hon. Gentleman—I got a far different story. While attempts are made by various organisations to create similar opinions all over the country, I find that there are committees which prefer to think for themselves.

Mr. LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman—

HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister must be given time to reply. There are no fewer than 15 counts in the indictment, and he must have time to reply to them.

Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member desire to put a point of Order?

Mr. LAWSON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to put a point of Order, will he kindly put it to me?

Mr. LAWSON: You were pointing out, quite rightly, that the right hon. Gentleman has some 15 counts to answer. May I ask if it is not fair to ask that he should answer the points that have been put?
[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Major TRYON: I would remind the House that this is a Motion in favour of an inquiry. I promised the House that I would make an inquiry, and I propose to give the House the result of the inquiry which I promised to make. I went, among other places, to Portsmouth, which is a typical example of a city which has been historically associated with both the Army and the Navy for a great number of years. I found that the War Pensions Committee at Portsmouth had refused to accept these ready-made opinions, and had personally conducted, with enormous labour, an inquiry on their own account into the question of final awards. They advertised, and they asked people over an area with a population of about 500,000 to send in their cases. I have all the details, though I have not time to give them all; but at all events this was the conclusion:
The Committee are of opinion that the results of this investigation do not justify a deputation being appointed to interview the Minister of Pensions with regard to re-opening the question of final awards and treatment allowances.
There is another point into which I have also made inquiry. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fairfield has spoken in this Debate, and upon a former occasion. The occasion to which I refer was that of the 10th December, 1924. It was after that speech that large numbers of signatures were obtained for the petition. I am sure that, like the
ex-service men themselves, my hon. and gallant Friend must have been misled by the headquarters officials of the British Legion. In ordinary parlance they have let him down very badly.

Major COHEN: I do not agree with that. I take full responsibility for anything that has been said.

Major TRYON: All who know my hon. and gallant Friend will have anticipated the generous way in which he assumes to himself this responsibility, but at the same time I cannot withdraw the statement. I do not wish to attack him, but those who, I am sure, prepared for him the details of these cases. His contention for the Legion is that at every point there should be some appeal to the Tribunal. Whether it is over the seven years' limit, whether it is on final awards, at every point the Tribunal must be allowed to come in, and it is because of our refusal over the seven years' limit and in connection with the correction of errors that he brings these complaints against us. He quotes three cases. The first is that of Bridges; he complained of the condition of the man as it was in February, 1924. At the end of that very month the case came before the Tribunal and was decided against the man. I am not going to argue whether the case was right, but I think the House ought to have been told it went to the Tribunal.
The second case was that of Mrs. Churchill. Her husband had less than three months' service in the Great War, all home service. He contracted tuberculosis nearly three years after his discharge, and in his lifetime the tribunal decided that the tuberculosis was not attributable to war service, and they also rejected the widow's subsequent claim for full pension, so that the tribunal came in twice. The British Legion did not tell us that. The third case was that of Mrs. Shine in which my hon. and gallant Friend said that death was admitted to be directly due to war service. As a matter of fact that was not so. Both claims, in respect of bronchitis and tuberculosis, were decided during the man's lifetime by the independent tribunal as neither attributable to nor aggravated by war service. I do not ask the House or anyone to decide as to these cases, but in an appeal based on a demand for a tribunal, and where large numbers of signatures may
have been influenced by these cases, the House ought to have been told that the tribunal was brought into action no fewer than five times.
I thought I was very fortunate when the chances of the ballot put this Motion into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince, because he had only lately been Secretary of State for War and, as Secretary of State for War, had maintained a Warrant which upheld the seven years' time limit in this kind of case. He was also a member of the Cabinet which took no steps whatever to remove this time limit when they were in power. The fact is that the seven years' time limit was imposed by the unanimous decision of the House of Commons. It was only settled after consultation with the best medical advice we had. It was considered that any illness ought to develop in less than seven years. The Government are prepared, as I have announced, to recognise, even after the time limit, that exceptional cases may arise, but that is quite a different thing from the whole demand that is being put to the House.
Since the last General Election there is hardly one principle, contrary to the foundations of our War Pensions System, which has not been urged upon me as Minister of Pensions. We have been urged, for instance, to allow women for years to come to acquire pension rights by marrying pensioners. If that is to go through I can only say that the people are not yet born who will be brought in. They may be born in 10, 20 or 30 years' time and may marry some old pensioner on his death-bed, and be entitled to a pension for years to come. I ought to say that, of course, the late Government did not accept the proposal.
That is not the whole proposal. We are also asked to sweep away all time limits; that is to say that claims may come in for 40 or 50 years from 5,000,000 people. In conjunction with that we must also remember that the British Legion supported the Bill brought in by the last Minister of Pensions when in opposition. It was a Bill under which any disability of a kind which might be due to the War was to be accepted as due to the War unless the Ministry could prove to the contrary.
One of the hon. Members who spoke in this Debate referred with considerable force to the fact that the Labour party, in the days before they took their present line on this matter, went into the question of pensions from, I think I might say, a more impartial point of view.
That was in the happy days when, as one Member who spoke said, all parties were co-operating to make the best possible system of pensions. This came from the headquarters of the Labour party. They suggested a six months' time limit, not a seven years'. They said, "There will have to be some limitation as to time. There is a strong presumption that if no claim has been made in six months it is because the man has no case."
I need hardly say one of the first things the Labour Government did on coming into office was to drop that Bill. The British Legion supported it. The right hon. Member who brought in this Motion spoke of the non-party spirit. We all recognise how far he went in that direction himself in his speech. If that is to prevail, should not the House consider very carefully before it passes any proposal for a Select Committee? Of the six Ministers, three have been members of the Labour party.
There has been inquiry after inquiry and committee after committee, but our objection to upsetting all that work is that you cannot now re-open all these questions. You cannot change the system of compensation according to the extent of disablement to a system of awards based on employment. It must be remembered that if it be decided to appoint a Select Committee, we should have to stop at once the granting of final pensions to a large number of men who to-day are passing from the realms of anxiety and uncertainty to knowing that their assessment is assured to them, and that they have a position of safely. Under the final awards, any man over 20 per cent. is assured of his assessment for life and is perfectly free from all risks and doubt as to his assessment being cut down by the Ministry. It is a Statutory Award: we believe that to be a great advantage to the pensioner, and we are not prepared to leave the matter to the risk of a Select Committee. We believe that on this point we are standing in the interests of the ex-service men.
The last speaker, to whom I am entitled to reply, alluded to the amount of unrest and uncertainty amongst pensioners. It would be better if he would remember that the Labour party made this question a party issue. I have here a number of points to that effect. We are told that there was anxiety among the ex-service men. Certainly there was. They were told that the Conservative and Liberal parties had pinched £11,000,000 from the pensioners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says, "Hear, hear!" Then why did his Government take off another £6,500,000 when they came into office?[Interruption.]
The Labour Government came in and brought in Pensions Estimates £6,500,000 lower than the particular Estimates which they said had pinched £11,000,000 from the pensioners. One hon. Member who is not here to-night, a member of the late Government, told us that medical boards existed for no other purpose than to cut down pensions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear !"] One hon. Member says, "Hear, hear!" Let him listen to the answer. Then why did the late Labour Government hold 166,000 medical boards in six months while they were in office? If hon. Members opposite wish to take a non-party aspect of this question they should act rather on the lines of the speech of my right hon. Friend who introduced the Motion.

I have not time to say all that I had intended, but I want, in conclusion, to

state that our policy is not to stand still. All through, it has been the Ministry of Pensions which has taken the initiative in reforms. It was the Ministry of Pensions which made a reform by giving a concession on the seven years time limit for widows. That was an important concession. It was the Ministry of Pensions which introduced the Correction of Errors, on their own initiative. It was the policy of the Conservative party, unitedly, which determined to stabilise pensions even though it cost £6,500,000. Throughout, our policy has been to watch and to keep in touch with the Committees. I hope to go round and to meet many Chairmen of Committees. Our main point is that we want to work to settle this question amicably, to give security to the pensioner, and to give him that security we have stabilised his rates.

Mr. WALSH: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is prepared to come to a decision.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Major TRYON: indicated assent.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the House is prepared to come to a decision, I will put the Question.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 256.

Division No. 45.]
AYES.
[1.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Connolly, M.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Crawfurd, H. E.
Groves, T.


Baker, Walter
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grundy, T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dalton, Hugh
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Barnes, A.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Barr, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Batey, Joseph
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dennison, R.
Hardie, George D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Duckworth, John
Harris, Percy A.


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bromfield, William
Dunnico, H.
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hayes, John Henry


Buchanan, G.
England, Colonel A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Cape, Thomas
Fenby, T. D.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Charleton, H. C.
Forrest, W.
Hirst, G. H.


Clowes, S.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Gillett, George M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gosling, Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Compton, Joseph
Greenall, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


John, William (Rhondda, Wast)
Palin, John Henry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Philipson, Mabel
Townend, A. E.


Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kennedy, T.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Varley, Frank B.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Riley, Ben
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lansbury, George
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford),
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lawson, John James
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lee, F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Livingstone, A. M.
Sexton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lowth, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lunn William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Welsh, J. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Westwood, J.


Mackinder, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


March, S.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maxton, James
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Windsor, Walter


Montague, Frederick
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Morris, R. H.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.



Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.



Owen, Major G.
Taylor, R. A.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Haslam, Henry C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony


Albery Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Curtis-Bennett. Sir Henry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hilton. Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C- M.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Berry, Sir George
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Elveden, Viscount.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Blundell, F. N.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Huntingfield, Lord


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brass, Captain W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fermoy, Lord
Jacob, A. E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fielden, E. B.
Jephcott, A. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gates, Percy
Lamb, J. Q.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Goff. Sir Park
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grace, John
Loder, J. de V.


Christie, J. A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Looker, Herbert William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gretton, Colonel John
Lougher, L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lynn, Sir, Robert J.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacAndrew. Charles Glen


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hammersley, S. S.
McLean, Major A.


Cope, Major William
Hanbury, C.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Couper, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Harland, A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Macquisten, F. A.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
MacRobert, Alexander M.




Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tinne, J. A.


Malone, Major P. B.
Remer, J. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rentoul, G. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Margesson, Captain D.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Waddington, R.


Meller, R. J
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Merriman, F. B.
Ropner, Major L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Rye, F. G.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Salmon, Major I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Watts, Dr. T.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wells, S. R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Murchison, C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Nelson, Sir Frank
Savery, S. S.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Neville, R. J.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Nicholson, Col. Bt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Oakley, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Withers, John James


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)
Wolmer, Viscount


Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Storry-Deans, R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Pilcher, G.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.



Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ramsden, E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)



Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-



Resolution agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. N. MACLEAN: rose

It being after Eleven o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS III.

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £182,775, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation.

CLASS I.

HOUSING SCHEMES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Housing Schemes under the management of the Office of Works.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there no explanation as to what the Vote is for? I suppose it is a Token Vote but I would like a brief explanation of what it is all about.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I did not rise originally because I did not know that the Committee would wish to have any further explanation than that which is given quite clearly on page 12 of the Supplementary Estimate. I am only asking for a net sum of £10. but the exceeding is for £9,800 which with anticipated savings gives a gross total of £7,600 against which there are appropriations-in-aid amounting to £7,590. The exceeding is due to the cost of works which were carried out during the winter of 1924–25 for unemployment relief, having proved greater than was anticipated. The exceeding of £8,500 shown on page 12 is for new road construction which has been undertaken, the actual amount of
work being greater than was anticipated, work being to the foundations of the roads not being as firm as they appeared to be when the work was started, and in addition there were the requirements of local authorities and weather conditions. There is nothing mysterious about this matter, and I ask the Committee to be good enough to give me the Vote now.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee, but this is the only possible opportunity, so far as I can discover, that we have of getting at the policy of the Government in its road construction schemes. Some of the schemes are under the Office of Works, which employs men direct. In others they operate through contractors, and I would like to know what are the wages conditions under which the Office of Works operates upon these road construction schemes. Do they only pay wages per hour when the men are able to work? When there is inclement weather, do the men drop their wages? Do they keep stores of their own for food supplies? Do they sell the men food supplies at reasonable prices, or do they do as the contractors are doing on the private road schemes and only pay wages when the weather is such that the men can work, giving the men no wages when the weather is inclement? When the men can no longer stick it owing to getting wages of 12s. 2d. and 12s. 6d. a week, do they, like the private contractors, hand the men over to the Employment Exchanges with instructions to the Exchanges to refuse to give them benefit? How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman differentiate in the treatment he metes out to these men as compared with the treatment meted out to them when employed by contractors?

Mr. MACLEAN: I would like to have some statement as to the number of men employed on these schemes, because it seems that the actual sum that is being spent is very small, and the number of men must be very small when this sum represents both the material for the roads and also the wages for the men. The number of men employed must only be a drop in the bucket in the relief of unemployment. There is one other point I want to make. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a statement that the additional cost is in some degree due to
the condition of the unemployed men taken on on these particular road schemes.
I wish to know from the Minister whether the condition of these men, owing to their long period of unemployment, has been of such a character that they require to employ more of them or whether the men themselves, because of lack of physical endurance, were compelled to leave off the job. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), I wish to know whether, in the circumstances the Minister has himself depicted as to the conditions of these men, special consideration was given to them in order to put them into a fit and proper physical state to carry on the projects under the Office of Works.

Captain HACKING: In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), there has been no differentiation made of any kind or description. These men are paid trade union rates of wages and work under trade union conditions. It is true that when the weather is too bad to work they do not get paid, but that is quite in accordance with the usual trade union conditions for this kind of work.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member say if instructions have been given to the Employment Exchanges when these men can only make 12s. 2d. and 12s. 6d. a week that they are not to get benefit if they do not continue working at these 12s. 6d. wages?

Captain HACKING: No special instructions of that kind are given to the Employment Exchanges. They are treated in exactly the same way as every other working man is treated under trade union conditions and employment exchange conditions and Regulations. In regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), the reason why there is a small amount shown is because these schemes have come to completion, and are practically finished now. The other point the hon. Member put to me was with regard to whether these men were being hardly treated because they were not in a fit condition to work.

Mr. MACLEAN: I did not say "hardly treated"—I took it you were quite sympathetic to these men—but whether they were given special consideration.

Captain HACKING: I think we have been very generous to them; otherwise there would not have been an extra charge on the Treasury. They did not do quite as much work for the fixed rate of wages, but the cost of the extra time they had to work on the task comes out of the Treasury, and not out of the men.

CLASS IV.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to confirm an agreement, dated the tenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, and made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland, with a view to assimilating the burdens on the Exchequers of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland with respect to unemployment insurance, and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums certified by the Joint Exchequer Board to be payable under the said agreement from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, and Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) AGREEMENT BILL,

"to confirm and give effect to an Agreement made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland with a view to assimilating the burdens of the Chancellors of the Exchequer of
the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland with respect to Unemployment Insurance, presented accordingly, and read the First time, to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed." [Bill 42]

TRADE FACILITIES [MONEY].

Resolution reported
That it is expedient—

(a) to amend the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 to 1925—

(i) by increasing from seventy million pounds to seventy-five million pounds the limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans in respect of which guarantees under those Acts may be given; and
(ii) by extending by one year the period within which such guarantees may be given;

(b) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1924, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may be given, and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty- three, the period during which guarantees under those Acts may remain in force." Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Ronald McNeill, and Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL,

"to amend the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 to 1925, by increasing the maximum limit of the loans in respect of which guarantees may be given under those Acts, and by extending the period within which such guarantees may be given and to extend the periods during which guarantees may respectively be given, and remain in force under the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1924," presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).

STANDING ORDER No. 47 (Constitution of Standing Committees).

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the word "Six," and to insert instead thereof the word "Five."
It may be convenient to make a brief explanation as to the need for the proposed change in the number of the Standing Committees and the number of members composing them. At one time the number of Committees was four. In 1919 that number was increased to six. At that time the Estimates were sent upstairs to a Committee. At the end of 1919 the Panel of Chairmen met to consider the effect of the establishment and working of these Committees, and they came unanimously to the conclusion the the Estimates Committee, for reasons that I need not go into—for the point hardly arises—had been a failure. They recommended a change, and also that the Committees should be reduced to five. The reason for that—and these few remarks cover the subsequent Amendments—was that it has been found that, seeing there are only three large Committee Booms upstairs, if you have all, or even some of these Committees sitting at the same time, not only is it inconvenient so far as the seating accommodation goes, but there is not a sufficient staff of clerks or shorthand writers to do the work required, especially if the pressure is kept up for any length of time.
Further the Panel of Chairmen found in 1919 that the result of some years of experience was this: that those members who attended most regularly and took the greatest part in the discussions, the moving of Amendments and the like, as well as the hard work of the House, were not the members who had been allocated to these Committees, but members who for special reasons were desirous of giving special consideration to special Bills. This caused them to suggest that the numbers should be decreased and, because of the difficulty experienced in obtaining a quorum, that the number of the Committees should be reduced. Curiously enough, I do not know why, the Report of the Panel of Chairmen was never acted on at that time, and it awaited a meeting and a consultation of the Chairmen of Committees upstairs, who were appointed in the present Parliament and represent all parties in the House. After careful inquiries, they came practically to exactly the same conclusions that the Chairmen of 1919 had come to when they first examined the working of the six-Committee system. That is the reason why these proposed Amendments
of the Standing Orders are brought before the House now. As this is a matter for the House of Commons as a whole, I have been at pains to see that all parties, through the usual channels, have been made aware of the proposals and have had time to consider them. I understand there is general agreement that the desire of the Chairmen of Committees should be given effect to by the House. That being so, I beg to move in succession the Amendments that are down in my name.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that the executive of the Labour party have approved these changes, I do not propose to take any definite action against them. I am always anxious to agree with my leaders where no matter of vital importance is involved. I think it is worth while, however, to put in a word of caution about these changes. With the exception of an hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel W. G. Nicholson) who has been for so long Chairman of these Committees, I have probably taken more part in the work of Standing Committees than any Member of the House.
We ought to be fully aware of what this change means. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, has pointed to the fact that those who attend regularly on the Standing Committees are the specially-appointed Members. Under this change of Rules, these specially-appointed Members are being increased from 15 to 35. That will mean, in the first place, that the attendance at these Committees will improve. No doubt that was at the back of the minds of the Chairmen in making these recommendations. But I think Members ought to realise that in nine cases out of 10 Members who are nominated to these Committees have asked to be put on them, with the result that those Members who have a special interest in a Bill are more fully represented there than those who simply represent the public interest. On two Committees last year, the one dealing with the Rating and Valuation Bill and the one dealing with the Tithe Bill, there was, in my opinion, an overweighting of the membership of those Committees by one particular vested interest. With this increase in the nominated Members; we get increased opportunities for vested
interests to be represented on these Committees.
In the 20 years I have been in the House I have seen another change on these Committees. It seems to me that more and more Members go on to a Committee acting almost as agents for societies outside. They come to the Committee not merely with Amendments, but with briefs to speak to those Amendments, and more and more we are getting on these Committees Members who are not taking what I think all of us will agree is the correct view for a Member of Parliament to take on a Committee, that is the sane point of view that he takes on a Private Bill Committee, but are taking up more and more the view-point of the special interests involved. It is for that reason that I rather deprecate the increase in the number of those who are specially, and at their own instance, added to these Committees. I do not think it is avoidable, because the attendance at Committees has got so bad, and we have got to have increased interest in the working of the Committees upstairs. But the Selection Committee, when they are nominating additional Members to these Standing Committees for special Bills, ought to give special attention to nominating, in the first place, those who do not act usually as special agents. There are of course those who take a general view rather than the point of view of any particular interest. I am not attributing any corrupt influence, but when you have a Bill which touches certain vested interests, there is a tendency to put those who represent that interest in special force on that Bill. We must realise that under this scheme you will get a larger representation of a special interest on these Committees, and we should get increased latitude on the Report stage in the House of Commons. If you have special interests represented by agents upstairs, then there should be a little more latitude for Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and more opportunities for re-debating Amendments which have been debated upstairs.
I rather regret that when this change was being made we did not raise the question of the number of the quorum of the Committees upstairs, because I think 20 gives an unfair pull to those
who are specially interested. I would like to see along with this change the quorum raised to 30, to ensure a sufficient number of Members who will take the ordinary public point of view rather than a special point of view. Would it not be possible for the Committee, when making their selection, to choose new Members more largely rather than those who specially desire to go on, because I think that the work done upstairs is the best possible training for a Member of Parliament.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: These Standing Orders need wider and more comprehensive alterations than are contained in these Amendments. Some of those sitting on the Labour Benches are not quite happy in regard to the way the business of this House is conducted. We believe that it could be conducted more expeditiously and in a manner more beneficial to the country at large if this House would depart from its ordinary practice and refer matters more to Committees, to report back again to this House for its final judgment, in the same way as many committees do which are set up by municipalities. With regard to these Amendments, I think the Committees ought to have remained at six, because there is ample accommodation in this building to accommodate all the Committees set up here, and there is sufficient staff obtainable to enable each of these Committees to be sufficiently well reported and have their deliberations put before the Committee in good time. I do not think that the Prime Minister has advanced any sound arguments why the number of Committees should be reduced. I think it will be a good thing to have some more Members added who take a great interest in the particular subjects referred to those Committees. That would be a very much better method of conducting the business, and I would rather see an extension of that method than a reduction of the number of Committees.
There is another point that I want to raise. While these alterations are being made, I should have liked the Prime Minister—who, at any rate when he comes to Scotland, prides himself on having at least some few drops of Scottish blood in his veins—to do something with regard to the Scottish Grand Committee in order to bring it more into line with the Committee which is provided for in regard to
Wales and Monmouthshire. One finds in Standing Order No. 48 a provision that the members of the Committee which deals with business relating to Wales and Monmouthshire are to be those Members who represent Wales and the County of Monmouth. No English member, as I take it, sits on that Committee; it is pro vided that Welsh business shall be dealt with by a Committee consisting of Welsh members and members from the County of Monmouth. But, when it comes to a question of Scottish business, Scottish business has to be discussed—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot raise that question on the present occasion. I observe that he has a Motion on the Paper, which he can put down again, dealing with the Scottish Grand Committee. But there is nothing in the present proposal that touches the Scottish Grand Committee, and it has been ruled by one of my predecessors that matters cannot be raised which are not cognate to the Motion before the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: Should I not be in order in suggesting to the Prime Minister an extension of the Amendment that he has already on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is in the nature of the one which I observe on the Order Paper to-day—that is to say, a proposal to confine the Scottish Grand Committee solely to Members from Scottish constituencies—it would not be in order. That is not touched or raised by the present Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is quite true, but I thought I should be in order, as I did not expect my Motion to come on to-night, in making the suggestion I am now making, to see if the Prime Minister himself would take it up, since there is already a Standing Order which sets up a Committee to deal with specific matters relating to another part of the country, the members of which Committee are to be exclusively Members from that part of the country, without any from any other part.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that is debating a matter which is not raised in the Question before the House. The hon. Member must put down his Motion again, and try and find an opportunity for it.

Mr. MAXTON: On the point of order. Seeing that the Prime Minister's Amendments are based on a recommendation from the Chairmen's Panel, of which the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee is a member, is not the point that my hon. Friend is making very cognate to the matter that the Prime Minister is bringing before the House to-night; and, further, do I understand that it is only by the leave of the House that this matter is being brought forward at all this evening? Would it not be possible for the Prime Minster to take back his present suggestion and widen the scope of the whole re-arrangement of the Committees?

Mr. SPEAKER: On the first point, this is exempted business, and therefore the House is entitled to proceed with it. On the other point, I am quite clear about my ruling. It is exactly on the lines given by my predecessor—that that question cannot be raised on the present occasion. The hon. Member has put down a Motion for another day to bring the matter up in the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this is exempted business, would it be in order on the first night on which the Standing Order in regard to the sittings of the House is suspended to have a Motion similar to that of which my hon. Friend has given notice to be discussed here? Would an ordinary Member be granted the same privilege as the Prime Minister?

Mr. SPEAKER: If he can persuade the Prime Minister to star it—

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is no star here.

Mr. SPEAKER: or put it before the Government Orders. This is Government Business. It is moved by the Prime Minister as representing the Government. It is Government Business, though it is not technically an Order of the House.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there a Standing Order dealing with business in the name of the Prime Minister not marked as distinctively Government Business? Must Government Business not be marked as distinctively Government Business with an asterisk?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, not Government Orders as distinct from Motions. If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper
for yesterday, he will see the first two questions were not starred, and they were not counted as Orders of the Day. If he watched closely, he saw that at the third item I called on the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. MACLEAN: I accept your ruling, Sir, but may I ask the Prime Minister to go into the matter, because I think we have a definite grievance in that regard in Scotland, and if he does so I am prepared to have things go through in that way, as a general agreement has been arrived at between all parties. I hope he will take my suggestions into consideration and probably at a later stage bring forward a further Amendment to the Standing Orders along the lines I have suggested.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I hope hon. Members will allow me to make one or two remarks about the very interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It appears to me, having only been in the House some seven years, as against his 20, that the House has somewhat improved its methods during the last seven years. I am afraid I must look to him as being far more a Tory in these matters than I am, according to the view he expressed, not in accordance with the executive of his party, but his own private views. His point seemed to be mainly that the weakness of the Standing Committees is that there are too many hon. Members who represent vested interests, and come as representatives of some outside body putting forward the views expressed by that body. One cannot help realising that the fact of hon. Members to some extent representing outside bodies is perfectly true, but I think throughout the House all parties do their business and understand their duties so well that they cannot be said to represent in an unfair way vested interests. But so far as concerns their representing and putting forward the views of outside bodies I think that is not altogether a bad thing. During the 20 years the right hon. Gentleman has been in the House the world has got 20 years older its affairs have become more complex and in practically every Bill of importance that comes before the House specialised knowledge and long acquired experience is very necessary if the House is to come to satisfactory decisions, and consequently I hold the
opinion somewhat strongly that it is of great assistance to this House that there should be on these Committees men who can put forward the views of representatives of bodies outside who have made a special study or have special experience of the question.
I have a sufficiently high opinion of my colleagues in this House to think that one, two, three or, for that matter, even more Members of the Standing Committees representing outside bodies can put forward a special point of view, if you like be special pleaders, but they are not there in sufficient strength to enable those outside bodies for whom they speak to be said to be unduly influencing the Committees of this House. In these circumstances I venture very respectfully to disagree with the view which the right hon. Gentleman put forward. On the whole, these Standing Committees, in the form which it is now proposed they should be, are likely to be even more successful than they have been during the years since the War. There is only one other point I want to make. It has been suggested by another hon. Member that there should be more Standing Committees than now proposed, but I differ essentially because I think that we do not want to overload this House or the country with too much legislation. We want a little less and a little better legislation. If there are more Standing Committees, the heavier is the work thrown on the Members of the House. To reduce the numbers of Standing Committees will work for good in the effect it will have on the legislation of the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to raise one point. The only danger I see in this proposal is that at the present time Members are appointed, generally speaking, to Standing Committees, and they do not know the business that comes before it. The result is that a large number is co-opted on a Committee before which comes a particular Bill, but if a Member is unable to pull the party wires he will have difficulty on his own to get on a particular Committee. It is quite conceivable that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) or the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), or two Members who are in no party at all at the present time, like the right hon.
Member for Norwich. (Mr. H. Young), because they have no particular party machine, may be appointed on a Committee without knowing what is coming before that Committee. But when an important Bill is to come before a Committee, because they are in no party caucus or have no party machine, they may be left out, or at least they have the greater chance of being left out of the Committees than formerly. I have no great enthusiasm for it, and I must disagree with the hon. Members who have spoken before. I served on the Unemployment Insurance Committee and attended every meeting held last year during the month of July. We met fairly early and sat rather late, and the sittings at times were heated. I cannot say that the co-opted Members attended as well as the Members who had been elected in the ordinary way, nor did their influence in the moving of Amendments show any greater ability on their part.
This proposal need not be very contentious, but behind it I view with distrust the giving of greater power to the party machine to say who are to be the additional Members. Like it or like it not, the party caucus says who are to be the additional Members. If a group of Members or one Member should happen to be unpopular with the party machine, that group or that Member will be penalised by being left off a particular Committee. As one who has been unpopular with all kinds of party machines, I view with a great deal of suspicion this proposal. Had it not been for the fact that I am trying to turn over a new leaf and to be more loyal, and that a certain agreement has been come to whereby this proposal should go through unopposed, I should have fought against it now and have done my best to delay its passage, because I look upon it as a danger to the rights of private Members.

Amendment agreed to.

STANDING ORDER NO. 48 (Nomination of Standing Committees).

Amendment proposed: In line 2, leave out the word "forty" and insert instead thereof the word "thirty."—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. MAXTON: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for
Govan (Mr. Maclean)? Mr. Speaker ruled it out of Order for discussion, but it is germane to the re-appointment of Committees. It is obvious from Mr. Speaker's rulings that there will be a very slim chance for a private Member on the other side to raise a discussion on any other occasion. I hope the Prime Minister will give us some assurance that he will look into this matter with a view to making alterations and giving facilities for the discussion of my hon. Friend's Amendment. That would help our attitude towards the proposal now before us.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Prime Minister say what his view is about the influence on Committees of certain Members who represent special interests? If he could say a word discouraging that sort of thing, it would tend to make the work of Committees much more in accordance with the traditions of Parliament.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is much point in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not think that is a risk. If the House saw that any risk of that kind was taking place, I think they would very soon stop it. I have never heard anything of the kind, and I do not anticipate anything of the kind. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan, that was out of Order, but as a matter of courtesy I will make an observation in regard to it. The alteration of Standing Orders in this House is a matter that is not undertaken lightly or wantonly. It is only done when it represents the general will of the whole House. Alterations of Rules for discussion and the conduct of business never take place unless there is a general concensus of agreement.
It is only because in this case there is a consensus of agreement, that this particular course has been recommended to the House by the Chairmen of the Committees upstairs, who are always selected from senior and respected and experienced Members of the House representing all parties. It is because these recommendations have come from them that I ask the House to adopt the recommendations. If hon. Members at any time like to consult me privately on any question of alteration of Rules, of course, I shall be only too pleased—it would be my duty—to talk the matter over with
them. But I can give no pledge in this House that any given alteration which any Member might wish to make will be brought before the House of Commons.

Mr. MACLEAN: In view of what has been said, will the Prime Minister meet a deputation of Scottish Members, who can put the case before him more clearly than is possible in the time now at our disposal?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 3, leave out the word "sixty" and insert instead thereof the word "fifty."

In line 18, leave out the word "fifteen," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-five."—[The Prime Minister.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Major Ainsworth, Mr. Batey, Mr. Blundell, Captain Bourne, Sir William Bull, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Clowes, Mr. John Guest, Lieut.-Colonel James, Major Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Foot Mitchell.
Sir Robert Thomas, and Mr. Robert Wilson be nominated members of the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. MACLEAN: Which of these Members represents Scotland on this Committee?

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household): This Committee has been set up in the usual manner. The Whips of all parties have been consulted. If any Members who come from Scotland wish that country to be represented on the Committee, they should make representations through the usual channels—the Whips of their party.

Mr. MACLEAN: There is no Scottish representative among this list of members, and I object to the list being passed to-night without such representation.

Colonel GIBBS: I have no objection to the postponement of the Motion relating to the names of the proposed members of the Committee, in order to give the hon. Member an opportunity of approaching his own party Whips in the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: I think it would be the wiser course and it may save heart-burning afterwards.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That three be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.